/ 


J f\ *■ *~~r & 

REPORT 

) #3 

1 OF TIIE 

t£, s. (5Cher £ S3. H. f ouSf- - 

' select committee 


ON ALLEGED 







NEW YORK ELECTION FRAUDS 


> 


MADE TO THE 


HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 


FORTIETH CONGRESS, THIRD SESSION, 


W M . L A W HENCE, OF OHIO 

CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE. 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 

1 S G 9. 1 



















40th Congress, > HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. ( Report 
3 d Session. j \ 31, 


1 

NEW YORK ELECTION FRAUDS. 


February 23, 1869. —Ordered to be printed, with the views of the minority. 


Mr. Wm. Lawrence, of Ohio, from the Select Committee on Alleged 
New York Election Frauds, submitted the following 

REPORT. 


[The numbers in the foot-notes refer to the numbers of questions and answers in the volume of evidence 

accompanying this report. ] 


PART I. 

THE EVILS DEMANDING A REMEDY. 


CHAPTER I. 

The committee was charged with the duty of investigating u the 
irregularities and frauds alleged to have occurred in the city and State 
of New York, affecting the recent election for representatives to Con¬ 
gress and electors of President and Vice-President .” 1 

This duty is one of the highest political importance. Irregularities 
and fraud in the election of representatives to Congress and electors of 
President and Vice-President cannot fail to excite just alarm in the 
minds of the people. Unless their will can be fully and fairly expressed 
in the election of the officers who are to make and execute laws, the 
vital principles upon which the government rests are set at defiance, 
and soon we may follow the fate of France, where imperial power 
was welcomed as the only means of peace, or the anarchy of contending 
factions, so fatal to Mexico, may close the career of our great republic. 
With us it is a political axiom that governments derive u their just pow- 

1 This investigation was set on foot in pursuance of “a memorial of a committee of the 
Union League club of the City of New York,” presented in the Senate and House of Rep¬ 
resentatives December 14, 1868, (Senate Mis. Doc. No. 4, 3d session 40th Congress.) This 
club numbers about 1,300 members, composed of gentlemen many of whom are distinguished 
for their learning, ability, and devotion to the interests of the republic. No stain of dishonor 
rests upon this organization or any of its members connected with the recent election. It is 
an organization which has rendered valuable service in various ways, including its prompt 
and energetic measures to detect and prevent fraud and secure the purity of the ballot. Its 
history is, and will doubtless continue to be, a part of that of the republic. It is proper to 
say this association has no connection with the organization known as “ The Union League.” 
The prominent historical democratic political organizations in New York city are “ Tam¬ 
many Hall,” “Mozart Hall,” and the “ Democratic Union.” 














2 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


ers from the consent of the governed.” It has been forcibly said that 
u the fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of 
the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to 
flow immediately from that pure original fountain of all legitimate 
authority.” 2 

By the Constitution the House of Representatives is composed of 
members u chosen every second year by the people of the several States.” 
(Art. 1, sec. 2.) 

Congress may at any time bylaw make or alter regulations prescribed 
in the States by the legislatures thereof, as to the times, places, and 
manner of holding elections for representatives. (Art. 1, sec. 4.) 

As Congress is thus clothed with the high prerogative of supervising 
the election of representatives, it is not only eminently proper, but it is 
an imperative duty that this body should by all proper means ascertain 
when irregularities or fraud exist in the election of its members, so 
that the people, apprised of evils, may avert them in the future, by per¬ 
sonal vigilance, by making and enforcing proper legislative provisions 
in the States, and above all so that Congress shall apply remedies by 
adequate laws efficiently enforced. A. republican government that can¬ 
not preserve the purity of the ballot is a failure; one which will not is a 
fraud, and is already resolved into anarchy. 

If as is alleged 3 the “ precipitate communication of the privileges of citi¬ 
zenship to the inhabitants of Italy at large” contributed to the downfall 
of Rome, or if the same causes scourged Syracuse by u perpetual sedition,” 
how much greater will be the dangers that may environ our own republic if 
elections are to be controlled by fraudulent votes cast in the interest of 
anarchy and misrule ? 

The nation must speedily perish if law-makers, under pretence of deriv¬ 
ing their power from legal voters, are suffered to become the representa¬ 
tives of conspiracy and fraud at elections. Successful election frauds in 
one great city may decide the political majority of a Congress, of a State, 
or of the nation in a presidential election. If they may succeed in one 
locality the evil will become contagious, until it pervades the whole body 
politic; elections will cease to reflect the public judgment, and soon, if 
the evil is permitted to go on unchecked, they will become rival contests 
of fraud, commanding neither confidence nor respect at home or abroad. 
Power obtained by fraud will not scruple to perpetuate itself by like 
means, nor will it hesitate to rob the people by corruption and schemes 
of plunder to accomplish its aims. 

If evils like these may come, or if a republic in name cannot or will 
not be so in fact; if the popular voice is to be hushed and powerless 
before the mockery of elections conducted in the name of the people, 
but reflecting only the purposes of terrorism and fraud, then revolution 
will be speedily invited, and the great republic may crumble to atoms. 

If Congress or the people could be insensible of, or indifferent to, the 
evils of fraudulent elections, it would not argue well for their patriotism, 
nor would it augur well for the permanency of our nationality. Fortu¬ 
nately our past and present history proves that the great body of the 
people are alive to the necessity of preserving the purity of the ballot; 
but it is to be deplored that the evidences are abundant that elections 
have too frequently been carried by fraudulent means in defiance of the 
popular will, and that existing laws are wholly inadequate to prevent a 
repetition of similar results. 

2 Number 22, Federalist; 7 Hamilton’s History of the Republic, 379; 2 Contested Elec¬ 
tion Cases. 262. 

3 7 Hamilton’s works, 774. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


3 


If the investigations of this committee shall arouse public attention 
to some of the dangers which threaten our institutions, the cause of good 
government will be promoted thereby. If these investigations show 
that State laws in their structure and mode of enforcement are wholly 
inadequate and cannot be relied on, then the duty of prescribing con¬ 
gressional safeguards, to preserve the purity of the ballot for national 
officers, is manifest. With a view to ascertain what is demanded by pub¬ 
lic interests, we may appropriately consult the lessons afforded by his¬ 
tory, and especially those taught by experience in our own complex 
systems of government. 

In every country where popular suffrage lias existed it has been found 
necessary to legislate against election frauds . 4 

The State of New York has been prolific in election frauds 5 at various 


4 In “Rogers’s Law and Practice of Elections,” (7th edition, 1847,) is a collection of the 
English election laws, commencing with the statute of A. D. 1382, 5 Richard II, stat. 2, 
cap. 4, and ending with the elaborate statute of May 31, 1843, 6 Victoria, cap. 18. 

In 3 Edward I, cap. 5, it is enacted: “Because elections ought to be free the King com- 
mandeth, upon great forfeiture, that no man, by force of arms, nor by malice, nor menacing, 
shall disturb any to make free election.”—2 Inst., 168. 

By statute 13 Henry IV, c 7, it is required that, “ sheriffs and justices of the peace 
shall repress riots with the power of the county.” 

The statute 1 W. & M., sess. 2, c. 2, s. 1, after reciting as one of the grounds of the 
abdication of James “the violating of the freedom of elections of members to serve in 
Parliament,” declares “that elections of members of Parliament ought to be free.” 

The statute of 7 William III recites “grievous complaints of undue election of members of 
Parliament by excessive and exorbitant expenses,” and affixes penalties for bribing voters. 

By sec. 83 of the statute of 6 Victoria, cap. 18, it is made penal for any person to “ know¬ 
ingly personate and falsely assume to vote in the name of any other person, whether such 
other person be living or dead, or if the name of said other person be the name of a fictitious 
person.” 

5 In the assembly of the State of New York, on the 6th of April, 1838, the judiciary com¬ 
mittee reported in relation to elections in that State that— 

Men vote who do not reside in the ward, often not in the State; aliens are frequently brought to the polls 
and their votes imposed upon the inspectors although many of them have not been a week in the country, and 
voters are not unfrequently taken from poll to poll, voting in three or four ditferent wards at the same elec¬ 
tion. These are the frauds constantly practiced at our elections, to the disgrace of the State and to the mani¬ 
fest wrong of the whole country. (Assembly Documents, New York, 61 sess., 1838, vol. 6, Rep. No. 324.) 

The reports of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate of the United States, submitted Jan¬ 
uary 27 and March 3, 1845, abundantly prove the existence of great frauds in the presiden¬ 
tial election of 1844. It is here shown that “ repeating” was then practiced. (See Berrien’s 
report, pp. 82, 84, 91, 95, 138.) Senate Docs., second session twenty-eighth Congress, vol. 
9, 1844-’45; Report No. 173. 

On the 1st of April, 1857, a committee reported to the assembly of New York that the 
ballot— 

Still fails to be a true reflection of the will of the people. It is said to be true that its guardian, so far from 
protecting it, became the medium of its corruption, and made its results such as they might desire instead of 
the honestly expressed sentiment if the ballot had been left undisturbed, or the inspector, either himself or by 
others, putting in unauthorized ballots enough of an opposite character to outweigh and smother those hon¬ 
estly deposited. So skilfully and adroitly are these frauds perpetrated that the offenders are rarely detected, 
and"if detected, political sympathy or prejudice loses the guilty one from the punishment he merits. (Doc. 
No. 197, 80th session, 1857, vol. 3, assembly of New York.) 

Governor King, of New York, in bis first annual message, in referring to the “elective 
franchise,” said: 

All know that in the city of New York, and measurably in other large cities, it is not pure and often is not 
free. (Report No. 109, vol. 4, Docs, of assembly of New York, 81st sess., 1858.) , 

And on the 20th of March, 1858, a select committee reported to the assembly that— 

Of late years fraud and simulation at the ballot-box have become extensive and enormous. No sane man 
will deny this; no man can controvert this fact; the evidence of its existence is as manifest and notorious as 
any well-known truth. It is true this evil is still in its infancy, but it is none the less important that a remedy 
should be speedily devised. ( lb.) 

The legislature of New York finally enacted the registry laws of May 13, 1865, and April 
25, 1866, which have failed to secure the purity of the ballot-box. 



4 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


times; while Louisiana, 6 Maryland, 7 and other States have presented 
many phases of the same evils. 

But appalling and startling as these have been in our past history, 
they are all surpassed in some respects by those perpetrated in the 
general election in the State, and especially in the city of New York, 
on the 3d of November, 1868. 

These frauds were the result of a systematic plan of gigantic propor¬ 
tions, stealthily prearranged and boldly executed, not merely by bands 
of degraded desperadoes, but with the direct sanction, approval, or aid 
of many prominent officials and citizens of New York, with the shrewdly- 
concealed connivance of others, and almost without an effort to discour¬ 
age or prevent them by any of those in whose interest and political 
party associations they were successfully executed, who could not fail to 
have cognizance of them, and whose duty it was to expose, defeat, and 
punish them. 

They were aided by an immense, corrupt, and corrupting official patron¬ 
age and power, which not only encouraged, but shielded and protected, 
the guilty principals and their aiders and abetters. 

These frauds are so varied in character that they comprehend every 
known crime against the elective franchise. They corrupted the admin¬ 
istration of justice, degraded the judiciary, defeated the execution of 
the laws, subverted for the time being in New York State the essential 
principles of popular government; robbed the people of that great State 

6 A special committee of the house of representatives of Louisiana appointed to examine 
into frauds perpetrated in the presidential election of 1844, reported that tbie testimony estab¬ 
lished— 

Beyond doubt that the election in Plaquemines for electors of President of the United States in November 
last (1844) was conducted in a lawless and irregular manner; that it was accompanied with turbulence, dis¬ 
order, threats, and violence on the part of the public officers and others, with intent to intimidateand influence 
voters ; and that it was fraught with illegal votes, with fraud and corruption, and with a fatal disregard of the 
laws of the land, of morality and religion. 

About 600 illegal votes were polled in the parish. (Senate Docs., 2d session, 28th Con¬ 
gress, vol. 9, 1844-’45 ; Berrien’s Reports.) 

A joint committee of the general assembly of Louisiana made a report to that body, Jan¬ 
uary 5, 1869, in relation to the elections in 1868 in that State, in which they say: 

In most parts of the State a systematic series of outrages, robberies, and murders were committed on the 
loyal people with the avowed intention of intimidating, and thus forcing them to abstain from voting, and of 
driving out of the country the republican leaders. Organized efforts were set on foot to compel the laborers 
of the State to vote the democratic ticket under penalty of not obtaining employment and even of being dis¬ 
charged from work in violation of existing contracts. Colored men were threatened with death unless they 
would accept of wffiat were termed “ protection papers,” setting forth that they were members of some demo¬ 
cratic club and would wear Seymour and Blair badges. Boards of registration and supervisors of election 
were threatened repeatedly, in a large number of parishes, with death, shot at, and by various lawless pro¬ 
ceedings either driven from their parishes or prevented from making a complete and fair registration. * * 

The civil authorities in many parishes seem to have been used only as additional machinery for the commission 
of further and worse outrages upon those whom it was their duty to protect. The committee are informed 
that in some parishes a man could not live 24 hours who would attempt to prosecute parties guilty of these 
murders; that in others, an affidavit would no sooner be made out against the guilty parties than the officer 
himself before whom it was made would send information of the facts to the accused parties, that they might 
escape. These outrages were not the work of rowdies and roughs ; their influential movers and backers were 
men called respectable and influential. (Pp. 5, 6.) 

And see evidence before the Committee on Reconstruction relative to affairs in Georgia 
and Mississippi, December, 1868, &c. Speech of Hon. J. P. Newsham, of Louisiana, in 
Congress, February 2, J869. 

7 In the case of Whyte vs. Harris, 2 Contested Election Cases, 257, the Committee on 
Elections of the House of Representatives reported that at the congressional election in Bal¬ 
timore, in November, 1857— 

Violence, tumult, riot, and general lawlessness prevailed. That as a consequence the reception of illegal 
votes and the rejection of legal votes, the acts of disturbance and assault committed on peaceable citizens, and 
the intimidation of voters so predominated as to destroy all confidence in the election as being the expression 
of the free voice of the people of that congressional district. Bands of desperadoes have there been organized 
and used to aid political objects and parties dangerous, if not wholly destructive of personal safety and public 
order. It seems mainly to have been directed against citizens of foreigu birth. Native-born American citi¬ 
zens as well as those of foreign birth were abused, maltreated, and their lives put in jeopardy upon approach¬ 
ing the polls. 

This was then the only case of the kind ever presented in Congress. 




ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


5 


of their rightful choice of electors of President and Vice-President, of 
a governor, and other officers ; disgraced the most populous city of the 
Union; encouraged the enemies of republican government here and 
everywhere to deride our institutions as a failure, and endangered the 
peace of the republic by an attempt to defeat the will of the people in 
the choice of their rulers. 

The events of the past year in New York and the evidence taken by 
the committee furnish the proof of all these allegations. 

Among the most prominent of the frauds committed in the interest of 
the democratic party in the city and State of New York in connection 
with the election in November, 1868, are these: 

1. Many thousands of aliens fraudulently procured or were furnished 
with certificates of naturalization illegally or fraudulently issued, by 
means of which they were enabled to register as voters and voted in 
violation of law. 

2. Many hundreds of certificates of naturalization were granted in the 
names of fictitious persons, to be used by native-born and naturalized 
citizens and aliens in falsely registering as voters, and to enable them to 
vote many times at the election. 

3. Many hundreds of persons voted in New York city from two to forty 
times or more, each under assumed or fictitious names, fraudulently reg¬ 
istered for the purpose. 

4. Extensive frauds were committed in canvassing tickets, and names 
of voters were entered on the poll-lists, and democratic tickets counted 
as if voters representing them voted, when no such persons voted at all. 

5. To accomplish these frauds gross neglect of duty and disregard of 
law so great as to evince a criminal purpose prevailed in some of the 
courts, while officers and democratic partisans of almost every grade, 
either by official influence or otherwise, aided, sanctioned, or knew of 
and failed to prevent them. The same influences shielded the perpe¬ 
trators in nearly all cases from detection or arrest, and when arrested 
they have, through the agency of judicial officers and others charged 
with the duty of prosecution, escaped all punishment. 

6. Througli these agencies the democratic electors of President and 
Vice-President and the democratic candidate for governor of the State 
of New York were fraudulently elected. 

7. And the investigations of the committee show that existing State 
laws and the mode of enforcing them are wholly inadequate to prevent 
these frauds, but that Congress has the power to enact laws which, if 
faithfully executed, will to some extent furnish remedies hereafter. 

There is no law of Congress professing to prevent or punish frauds in 
voting or conducting elections, and the penalties relating to certificates 
of naturalization are by no means adequate. 


CHAPTEE II. 

I._Naturalization frauds—General evidence of fraud and 

ILLEGALITY IN NATURALIZATIONS. 

1 .—The unusual number naturalized. 

Prior to the year 1868 naturalizations were effected in State courts in 
New York city only in the court of common pleas and the superior court. 
The average number naturalized each year in the common pleas, from 


6 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


185G to 1867, inclusive, was 5,252, 8 and in tlie superior court 3,955, 9 or a 
total annual average of 9,207. 

Tlie highest number in any one of these years, in both these courts, 
prior to 1865, was 16,493, in 1856. 

On the 6tli of October, 1868, the supreme court commenced the work 
of naturalization. 10 In the year 1868 these courts, as reported by some 
of their officers, naturalized as follows: 


In the common pleas.•-. 3,145 

Superior court. 27, 897 

Supreme 11 court in October. 10, 070 


Total. 41,112 


8 Evidence, 6310: 


Number naturalized in 

1856. 

. 10,479 

Number naturalized October 6. 

. 78 

Do. 

1857. 

. 6,857 

Do. 


. 57 

Do. 

1858. 

. 4,882 

Do. 

.8. 

. 81 

Do. 



Do. 

.9. 

. 91 

Do. 

1860. 

. 8, 142 

Do. 

.10. 

. 42 

Do. 

1861. 

. 2,935 

Do. 

.12. 

.157 

Do. 

1862. 

. 1,511 

Do. 

.13. 

. 231 

Do. 

1863. 

. 1,762 

Do. 

.14. 

. 149 

Do. 

1864. 

. 5,631 

Do. 

.15. 

. 116 

Do. 

1865. 

. 4, 154 

Do. 

.16. 

. 85 

Do. 

1866. 

. 6,465 

Do. 

.17. 

. 21 

Do. 

1867. 

. 4,662 

Do. 

.19. 

. 105 

Do. 

1868. 

. 3, 145 

Do. 

.20. 

. 18 

Number naturalized October 1. 

. 104 

Do. 

.21. 

. 16 

Do. 

.2. 

. 95 

Do. 

.22. 

. 29 

Do. 

. 5 . 

. 139 

Do. 

.23. 

. 31 

9 Evidence, 7202 

Gillespie: 





Year. 


Number. 

Year. 


Number. 

1856. 


.6,014 

1863. 


. 871 


1857. 

1858. 

1859. 

1860. 
1861. 
1862. 


2, 134 
1,887 
2, 090 
5,414 
968 
903 


1864. 

1865. 

1866. 


6, 540 
3,274 
6, 558 


1867 . 10,814 

1868 . 27,897 


Westlake, a deputy clerk, says, (Evidence, 2022, 2429:) 

A. I present a statement giving the aggregate number of naturalization in that court for the months of 
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, and September, and the number naturalized 
each day from the 1st to the 23d of October, and the aggregate for the month of November and up to the 
24th of December, the total being 27,897. The statement is as follows: 


1868. 

January. 

February. 

March. 

April. 

May. 

June. 

July. 

August... 

September. 

October 1. 

October 2. 

October 3. 

October 5. 

October 6.. 

October 7.. 

October 8. 

October 9.. 

10 Evidence, 1947, 5104. 


Number. 

1868. 

Number. 

84 

October 10 ... 

. 1 653 

100 

October 12. 

. 1 856 

105 

October 13. 

. l| 868 

140 

October 14. 

. 2 109 

108 

October 15... 

. T 420 

102 

October 16. 

. l' 112 

140 

October 17. 

. '840 

195 

October 19. 

. 1,026 

632 

October 20. 

. l’ 004 

580 

October 21. 

. '860 

745 

October 22. 

. 911 

840 

October 23. 

. 1,024 

. 1,425 

November. 

. ' 41 

. 1,721 

December. 

. 24 

1 630 



. 1|842 

Total. 

.. 27, 897 

. 1,760 


— 


11 Evidence, 5104 : 


Number of persons naturalized in the supreme court of New York city, on the days hereinafter named. 


1868. 


October 6. 6 

October 7. 8 

October 8. 379 

October 9. 668 

October 10. 717 

October 12. 723 

October 13. 901 

October 14. 523 

October 15. 857 


1868. 


October 16. 721 

October 17. 633 

October 19. 955 

October 20. 944 

October 21. 773 

October 22. 675 

October 23. 587 


Total.10,070 


































































































































ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


7 


This is more than four times the average of previous years, and about 
two and a half times greater than the largest number in any preceding 
year, and it is not possible that there could have been any such number 
of legal applications. 12 


l ~ An attempt is made to account for the great number of naturalizations by saying that the 
presidential election induced this, and that aliens did not become naturalized during the war, 
because they would be liable to be drafted into the military service. (Evidence, 3350,2820, 
3578,3519,2002,7533.) 

The naturalizations in the State courts of the city in I860 were 13,556, in 1859 only 7,636. 
But in the year ot the presidential election of 1864 the naturalizations were 12,171, so that 
the liability to military service did not materially diminish naturalization. The war practi¬ 
cally closed in April, 1865, so that three years intervened up to 1868, with an exciting guber¬ 
natorial election in 1866, in which year there were 13,023 naturalizations, and in 1867 there 
were 15,476, showing that any omissions during the war were now made up. It is abund¬ 
antly shown that the tear reduced the alien ‘population of the city , many of whom enlisted in 
the military service , died of disease or casualties , and after the war located elsewhere. 

Evidence, 6311, 3741, 6952. 

See this report, Chapter VI, note to page —. 

Judge McCunn testifies that “the men who went into the army from the city were princi¬ 
pally foreigners.” Evidence, 6953. 

The naturalizations of 1868 should have been reduced in consequence of this. 

The war, as shown by immigration statistics, diminished emigration from April, 1861, to 
April, 1865, and aliens arriving since it closed were not entitled to naturalization in 1868. 

The alien emigrants arriving at New York in 1860 were 105,162; in 1861, only 65,539; 
in 1862, only 76,306. For the four years of 1857 to I860 inclusive, the yearly average was 
111,711, while the yearly average for three years, 1861 to 1863 inclusive, was only 99,569, 
and of those who did arrive and remain in New York many were withdrawn by the war. 
Of these emigrants only a small proportion remained in the State of New York, and still 
less in the city, and of those in the city many were women and children. The statistics of 
emigration for several years are as follows: 

Table shoicing the numbers and nativities of alien emigrants who arrived at the poit of New 

York from May 5, 1847, to January 1, 1867. 


Nationality. 

1847. 

1848. 

1849. 

1850. 

1851. 

1852. 

1853. 

Ireland ... 

52, 946 

53, 180 
8, 864 

2, 354 

3, 330 
1,947 
3, 611 

98, 061 
51, 973 
23, 062 
6,415 
2, 734 
1,622 
1,560 
1,054 
1, 207 
165 

112, 591 
55, 705 
28. 321 
8, 840 
2, 683 

117, 038 
45, 535 
28, 163 

163, 306 
69,919 
28, 553 
7, 302 
5, 964 

118,131 
118, 611 

113,164 
119,644 
27,126 
6,456 
7, 470 
4, 604 
1, 085 

Germany ... 

England . 

31j 551 

7, 694 

8, 868 
6,471 
1,223 
2, 531 
1,889 
2, 008 

359 

Scotland. 

6, 772 
3, 462 

France... 

Switzerland .. . .. 

1,405 
2,447 
1,782 
3, 300 
1,007 
602 

2, 380 
1, 174 

4,499 
1,798 
2, 189 
2, 112 
872 

Holland _ _ __ 

Wales . 

472 

f520 
3,150 
1, 110 

i; i82 
377 

Norway __ __...._.... 

882 

Sweden ...... 

139 

1, 630 

Italy . ........_............ 

197 

32 L 

476 

618 

553 

"Rplginm .. _ __ .. 

551 

118 

230 

475 

82 

34 

Spain _....______ 

101 

253 

214 

257 

278 

471 

659 

Wft 8 1* Tnfliop ___- 

299 

392 

449 

554 

575 

265 

Denmark... 

95 

52 

159 

90 

229 

157 

94 

Poland. 

26 

79 

133 

188 

422 

188 

186 




172 

165 

98 

69 

72 

South A mprim....-_ 


31 

* 33 

104 

121 

120 

175 

Portugal. 

34 

57 

287 

65 

26 

37 

237 




151 

164 

81 

73 

6 

Russia ...... 

10 

28 

38 

18 

23 

33 

39 




50 

61 

50 

48 


]\f p.Tno.o __----- 


12 

23 

41 

42 

23 

51 




21 

28 

12 

42 

37 



2 

9 

11 

22 

14 

53 


23 


34 

32 

10 

18 


G-tp.ppp. ,. . .. 

1 

6 

4 

1 

11 

1 


1 


6 

4 

4 

5 

10 




8 






































95 













Annual totals.__ 

129, 062 

189,176 

220, 603 

212, 796 

289, 601 

300, 992 

284, 945 






























































8 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK 


In tlie supreme court only one judge, George G. Barnard, heard appli¬ 
cations for naturalization; in each of the other courts more than one 


Table showing the number and nativities of alien emigrants , Sfc. —Continued. 


Nationality. 

1854. 

1855. 

1856. 

1857. 

1858. 

1859. 

1860. 

Ireland. 

82, 302 

43, 043 

44, 276 

57,119 

25, 075 

32, 652 

47, 330 

Germany. 

176, 986 

52, 892 

56, 113 

80, 974 

31,874 

28, 270 

37, 899 

England. 

30, 578 

22, 938 

23, 787 

28, 622 

12, 324 

10, 375 

11, 361 

Scotland. 

4, 909 

4,240 

4, 723 

5,170 

2,718 

2, 325 

1,617 

France. 

7, 986 

4, 174 

2, 984 

3, 069 

1, 786 

1,532 

1,549 

Switzerland. 

8, 883 

3, 273 

2,559 

2, 454 

1,315 

791 

1,422 

Holland. 

1,466 

822 

1,666 

1,734 

348 

261 

440 

Wales. 

1,288 

1,118 

1,376 

887 

566 

500 

811 

Norway. 

81 

203 

438 

62 

3 

36 

53 

Sweden. 

l, 859 

304 

918 

619 

237 

318 

361 

Italy. 

785 

667 

690 

596 

669 

399 

542 

Belgium. 

398 

1,201 

850 

444 

253 

57 

76 

Spain. 

646 

457 

330 

263 

146 

234 

228 

West Indies. 

11 

19 

225 

330 

344 

416 

523 

Denmark. 

102 

174 

469 

453 

284 

493 

495 

Poland. 

169 

346 

142 

245 

88 

114 

80 

Sardinia. 

148 

67 

426 

405 

324 

164 

89 

South America. 

111 

112 

163 

66 

92 

138 

110 

Portugal. 

205 

24 

30 

93 

27 

45 

19 

Nova Scotia. 

128 

9 

30 

40 

18 

81 

23 

Russia. 

55 

20 

56 

42 

19 

69 

61 

Canada.. 

2 

64 

57 

30 

17 

25 

25 

Mexico. 

34 

20 

19 

11 

13 

13 

22 

Sicily. 

58 

18 

10 

26 

19 

1 

4 

China. 

20 

18 

8 

11 

15 

4 

13 

East Indies. 


5 



7 


4 

Greece. 

7 

3 

3 

8 

2 

6 

2 

Turkey. 

6 

2 

4 


6 

3 

3 









Annual totals. 

319, 223 

136, 233 

142, 342 

183, 773 

78, 589 

79,322 

105,162 


Table showing the numbers and nativities of alien emigrants , Sfc. —Continued. 


Nationality. 

1861. 

1862. 

1863. 

1864. 

1865. 

1866. 

Total. 

Ireland. 

25, 784 

32, 217 

92,157 

89, 399 

70, 462 

68, 047 

1, 485,100 

Germany. 

27, 139 

27, 740 

35, 002 

57, 446 

83, 451 

106,716 

1, 317, 069 

England. 

5, 632 

7, 975 

18, 757 

23, 710 

27, 286 

36,186 

435,171 

Scotland. 

659 

692 

1,937 

3,126 

3, 962 

4,979 

86, 890 

France. 

1,200 

1,187 

1,303 

1,804 

2, 059 

3, 246 

68. 390 

Switzerland. 

1,398 

1,254 

1, 194 

1,652 

2,513 

3, 685 

55, 321 

Holland. 

331 

456 

407 

615 

729 

1,506 

23, 679 

Wales. 

697 

1, 062 

1,143 

659 

505 

540 

21,882 

Norway. 

93 

22 

238 

88 

158 

583 

14, 975 

Sweden. 

382 

663 

1,370 

1,516 

2, 337 

3, 907 

21, 722 

Italy. 

750 

487 

444 

475 

591 

918 

11,139 

Belgium. 

165 

195 

456 

186 

97 

157 

6, 025 

Spain. 

190 

124 

202 

196 

224 

315 

5, 788 

West Indies. 

165 

156 

256 

236 

283 

246 

5, 744 

Denmark. 

612 

1,689 

1,580 

565 

727 

1,526 

10, 045 

Poland. 

43 

50 

137 

198 

423 

231 

3; 488 

Sardinia. 

67 

39 





2 305 

South America. 

88 

92 

60 

124 

109 

155 

2 ! 004 

Portugal. 

14 

13 

3 

34 

42 

96 

1, 378 

Nova Scotia. 

11 

67 

77 

40 

77 

40 

1, 116 

Russia. 

36 

46 

47 

37 

93 

154 

924 

Canada. 

19 

33 

17 

35 

43 

28 

613 

Mexico . 

45 

13 

38 

92 

70 

56 

638 

Sicily. 

1 

9 

1 

3 

3 

1 

294 

China. 

10 

15 

5 

41 

36 

26 

333 

East Indies. 

2 

1 

3 

1 

7 

15 

162 

Greece. 

1 

6 

2 

13 

5 

5 

87 

Turkey. 

5 

3 

2 

5 

5 

8 

82 

Arabia. 







g 

Africa. 



6 


37 

15 


Australia . 




30 

Japan. 





18 

1° 

7 

Central America. 





7 

12 

Unknown. 






12 

95 







Annual totals. 

65, 539 

76,306 

156, 844 

182, 296 

196, 352 

233, 418 

3, 582, 574 








































































































ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


9 


judge exercised the jurisdiction, though in 1808 in the superior court it 
was mainly done by Judge John H. McCunn. 13 The highest number 
naturalized in one day in the superior court was, October it, 2,109; and 
in the supreme court, by a single judge in one day, October 19, was 955. 
From October 8 to 23, inclusive, this judge ordered a daily average of 
over 718 certificates of citizenship. 

How far these figures give the full number of certificates granted will 
be considered hereafter. 14 

2 .—Number naturalized each day. 

If there were no other evidence to stamp with infamy, fraud, and ille¬ 
gality a portion of these naturalizations, the great number issued by 
a single judge in one day would be quite sufficient. In 1844 a judge in 
Louisiana was impeached and removed from office for malfeasance in 
granting certificates of naturalization. The select committee of the 
House of Representatives investigating the charges in a report say: 
“It further appears that nearly 400 of these certificates were issued in 
one day. It seems to your committee impossible that this could have 
been legally done.” 15 

But this impossibility is greatly increased when the number reaches 
955—a number inconsistent with either honesty of purpose or legality 
in practice. 16 


13 Evidence, 3420. Meeks, a clerk, says: 

Judge McCunn did the greatest part of it; Judge Garvin the next. These two judges were naturalizing ; 
Judge Jones and Judge Barbour assisted. They were holding term, and when they got out of court they 
came over to assist; but the bulk of it was done by Judges Garvin and McCunn. Judge Barbour did some, 
but not much. Judge Morrell did none. He was in Europe from June until the 3d of November. 

See Evidence, 3573. 

54 Evidence, 7643, 7673, 2429, showing 840 papers missing for one day. See Evidence, 2168, 
4138. 

15 U. S. Senate documents, 2d sess. 28th Cong., vol. 9, ]844—’45; doc. No. 173, p. 148. 

16 In Kings county, Brooklyn, the number of naturalizations were only procured from one 
court. But with the extensive practice there they did not reach so large a daily number as 
in New York city. The statement for one court is as follows : 


Statement of the whole number of persons naturalized in the count]/ clerk's office from the 23 d day of September , 
1856, to the 31s? day of December, 1868, in Kings county. 


1856 

1857 
1858, 
1859 
1860, 
1861, 
1862 
1863 


1,667 

1864 

293 

1865 

984 

1866 

144 

1867 

1,159 

1868 

47 


151 


181 



Total 


722 

483 

2, 328 
2,436 

3, 246 


13, 841 


Whole number naturalized from the 1st day 


October 1. 130 

October 2. 28 

October 3. 24 

October 5. 74 

October 6. 55 

October 7. 217 

October 8. 117 

October 9. 130 

October 10. 12 

October 12. 187 

October 13.-. 207 

October 14. 105 

October 15. 207 

October 16. 107 

October 17. 55 


Evidence, 5102. 


of October to the 31st day of October, 1868. 


October 19. 143 

October 20. 157 

October 21. 145 

October 22. 130 

October 23. 183 

October 24. 39 

October 26. 5 

October 27. 12 

October 28. 4 

October 29. 9 

October 30. 6 

October 31. 5 


Total.2, 613 




















































10 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


3 .—Minor applications. 

By law any alien having resided in the United States five years, in¬ 
cluding three years next preceding arriving at the age of 21 years, may 
he naturalized without having made a declaration, in some court, two 
years before admission to citizenship, of his intention to become a citi¬ 
zen, such declaration being required in most other cases. 

It must be manifest that many thousands of certificates of naturaliza¬ 
tion were fraudulently issued as upon u minor applications,” to avoid 
the necessity of the previous declaration. Out of 10,093 naturalizations 
in the supreme court in October, 9,711 profess to be u minor applica¬ 
tions,” leaving only 382 for u soldier” applications; and of those having 
made previous declaration—, 16 


l « Evidence, 7594. 

Days on which witnesses appear and the number of times each witness appears on the naturali¬ 
zation papers filed in the supreme court , county and State of New York, during the month of 
October, 1868, from the 8th to the 2'3d of said month, inclusive. 


[About 200 soldiers’ papers in all.] 


Names of witnesses. 

October 8 
and 9. 

October 10. 

October 12. 

October 13. 

October 14. 

October 15. 

October 16. 

October 17. 

October 19. 

October 20. 

October 21. 

October 22. 

October 23. 

Total. 

Patrick McCaffrey.... 

14 

60 

7 

1 

1 

84 

2 



4 

23 

38 

17 

251 

John Ward. 

31 

9 

*26 

40 

22 

44 

15 

14 

16 

21 

22 

24 

40 

324 

John Moran. 

18 

24 

*24 

43 

57 

13 

112 

.... 

20 

21 

54 

44 

25 

455 

James Goff. 

*11 








4 

8 

19 

12 

14 

68 

Patrick Goff. 

*75 

*55 

11 

83 

52 

63 

20 

8 

44 

24 

10 

9 


454 

Thomas Selkald. 

9 

27 

13 

9 

.... 

31 

15 

12 

25 

20 

12 

25 

5 

203 

Bernard Lachman. 

o 

10 

5 

3 

.... 

7 

6 

2 

3 

2 

1 

2 

1 

44 

James McCabe... 


9 

7 

30 

38 

16 

18 

22 

4 

27 

3 

18 


192 

Michael Marrow. 

2 

*12 

*25 

11 

8 

6 


10 

7 

23 

8 

7 

1 

120 

John McGinnis. 

3 


3 

13 

27 

26 

24 

42 

11 

9 

14 



172 

Joseph Moore. 

31 

2 

10 

24 

28 

44 


27 


20 

17 

o 


205 

James O’Donnell. 


13 

13 


1 

6 




1 




34 

David Sanford. 

11 





5 








16 

John McCarthy. 

12 













12 

Johp Gallegher. 


*37 


9 

7 


1 



1 




55 

Philip Wiley. 

11 



10 


8 

4 

1 

3 


7 

o 


46 

James Gallegher.... 




1 




1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

g 

Philip Cooney.. . 






3 


1 

12 



2 

2 

20 

Jeremiah Coffer. 







13 


19 





32 

John W. White. 









12 





12 

Thomas Fox. 











25 


1 

26 














Total. 

230 

258 

144 

277 

241 

356 

230 

139 

181 

184 

216 

186 

107 

2, 749 

Number of papers examined.... 

11,089 

700 

915 

766 

557 

841 

788 

617 

933 

909 

755 

659 

564 

10, 093 

Number of minor papers. 

1,053 

670 

851 

742 

541 

813 

757 

595 

899 

874 

720 

642 

548 

9,711 


* Numbers marked thus (*) show a difference from the paper heretofore sworn to, for the reason that said 
paper was made a part of the evidence before all the naturalization papers of the dates therein were examined 
except as to James Goff and Patrick Goff, when the one was taken for the other. 

1590 of October 8th and 9th were examined by Mr. Glassey. 
















































































Names of persons who appeared as icitnesses on application for naturalization in the superior court, in the city and county of New York, from the 3 Oth 

of September, 1868, to the 23 d of October, 1868, inclusive. 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


11 


Ill tlie superior court an examination of 17,572 applications 17 sliows 


17 Evidence, 7671 : 



Total number of times on which the several persons as witnesses for naturalization herein appeared as such in the superior court, in the city and county of New York, 
2,379, from the 30th of September, 1868, to the 23d of October, 1868, inclusive. [And see Evidence, 6851.] 





















































































































































12 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


that 13,541 were “ minor,” leaving only 4,031 on “ declarations of inten¬ 
tion” and for “ soldiers.” It is not possible that there coidd have been 
any such number of minor applications. 

There was a republican naturalization committee, with an office at 25 
Chambers street, organized “for the purpose of aiding applicants for 
naturalization in getting their papers, to which the various ward clubs 
and associations” sent parties, and for whom applications were made.” 18 
“ The whole business of naturalization of the republican party” was 
transacted through that office. This committee refused to employ any 
“professional witness,” 19 and they kept a careful record of all persons 


naturalized. 

The total number was.2,085 

Of these there were “minor applications”. 1,237 

On previous declaration of intention. 549 

Soldier applications. 299 


Less than 60 per cent, of these were “minor applications.” 

Mr. Jarvis, the clerk of the common pleas, testifies that of the nat¬ 
uralizations in that court in 1868, “about one-half were minors”—he 
“made that estimate.” 20 But assuming that 60 per cent, is a legitimate 
proportion, then, of the 10,093 applications admitted to be in the su¬ 
preme court, only 6,056 would be “ minors,” showing 3,655 fraudulent; 
and of the 17,572 applications examined in the superior court only 10,543 
would be “minors,” showing 3,000 fraudulent; making an aggregate of 
6,655 fraudulent, on this ground alone , in the naturalizations of 24 days ! 21 

4.— Extensive preparations . 

Although in every county of New York there is a county court in per¬ 
manent session 22 authorized to naturalize aliens, yet for some reason many 
naturalizations for various counties were effected in the courts of New 
York city. The supreme court for the first time in its history engaged 
in the work. 23 Notwithstanding the fact that the annual average 
number of naturalizations in the city in all the State courts was 
only 9,207, yet there was printed by the New York Printing Com¬ 
pany, on the order of the clerks of these two courts, or their deputies, 
between September 16 and October 23, 105,000 blank applications 

18 Evidence, 4880. 

19 Evidence, 4824-4880. For democratic professional witnesses see tables in preceding 
notes, and 93, 7606, 7648, 4664, 1369, 1425. 

20 Evidence, 2012. He accounts for many minor applications of prior years by reason of 
the registry law of 1865, requiring the production of a certificate of naturalization even of 
persons who were citizens by the naturalization of their parents during their minority. But 
this cannot well be deemed the true construction of the law. Evidence, page 326. As 
three years elapsed since this law was passed, it could not materially increase the “minor 
applications ” of 1868. 

And see Evidence, 4172, 7504, 7523, 7557, 7550. Judge Garvin swears : 

4484. Q. How did the number of minors who applied for naturalization this year compare with the number 
who applied the previous year ? A. I do not know that there was any larger proportion of minors this year 
than other years. 

21 Henry Lyle testifies: 

4769. Q. State, if you can, what proportion of persons for whom you procured certificates of naturalization 
was on blanks for applicants who came to the United States under 18 years of age.—A. They were all, except 
two or three. 

4770. Q. State whether any persons for whom you made out applications did really come to the United 
States under 18 years of age.—A. Perhaps a few of them did. 

4773. Q. Among the applicants for whom you procured certificates of naturalization on the ground that 
they came to this country under 18 years of age, were there any very old men?—A. Yes, sir ; a great many. 

22 Evidence, 7555. 

23 Evidence, 1952. 







ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


13 


for and G9,000 certificates of naturalization; 24 of which there were 
for the supreme court from September 10 to October 22 ? 75,000 blank 
applications and 39,000 certificates of naturalization, and for the 
superior court 30,000 applications and 30,000 certificates; showing a 
purpose to issue, if required, 09,000 certificates. These were not all pro¬ 
cured at once, but on different days, ordered from time to time—in the 
supreme court 10,000 certificates being procured as late as October 20, 
and in the superior court 10,000 as late as October 15. 

But this does not seem to have supplied the demand. Various natur¬ 
alization committees and offices established under the control of Tam¬ 
many Hall were supplied with u several thousand” naturalization blanks 
to be used in the courts, which were printed for these offices. 25 

The fees of the clerks of courts on the applications which passed 
through these offices were arranged by “red tickets,” to be subsequently 
paid by Tammany Hall, of which over 40,000 were furnished to the com¬ 
mittee. 26 

These preparations for extensive naturalization are inconsistent with 
any legitimate purpose. 

For the supreme court, which never naturalized before October 0, up 
to that day 45,000 blank applications and 14,000 certificates Avere pro¬ 
cured, and although this is nearly 4,000 more than the records sIioav to 
haA T e been issued, yet 30,000 additional blank applications and 25,000 
additional blank certificates were procured, 10,000 of which were 
within three days of the time the work of naturalizing closed. 


24 Charles E. Wilbur testifies : 

2168. I am president of tbe New York Printing Company, and have been since its commencement, two or 
three years ago. AA r e printed naturalization blanks for the various courts this year as follows: For the supe¬ 
rior court: October 2, 10,000 certificates of naturalization; October 8, 10,000 certificates of naturalization; 
October 15, 10,000 certificates of naturalization; October 3, 10,000 applications; October 16, 20,000 applica¬ 
tions of four or five different kinds. I believe they were delivered to the officers of the court; that is our 
custom. We printed for the supreme court: October 6, 5,000 certificates of naturalization; October 12, 5,000 
certificates of naturalization ; October 15, 10,000 certificates of naturalization ; October 20, 10,000 certificates 
of naturalization ; October 6, 25,000 applications—5,000each of five different kinds; October 12, 5,000 appli¬ 
cations; October 13, 10,000 applications; October 16, 5,000 applications; October 19, 5.000 applications ; Octo¬ 
ber 22, 5,000 applications. They were delivered, I believe, to the officers of the court. The aggregates are : 
for the superior court, 30,000 certificates of naturalization and 30,000 applications; for the supreme court, 
30,000 certificates of naturalization and 60,000 applications. I know no reason why there should be more 
applications in the supreme court than in the superior. I should suppose there would be two or three times as 
many applications needed as certificates. I do not recollect our having printed naturalization certificates for 
the supreme court prior to this time. There may be many blanks on hand in the offices of the clerks of the 
courts ; there are none in our office. The company is a stock company. 

4138. I wish to state that in addition to the number of certificates of naturalization and applications printed 
by the New York Printing Company, of which I gave evidence before, I have found that on the 16th of Sep¬ 
tember we furnished to the supreme court 10,000 applications and 9,000 certificates, and on the 19th of Sep¬ 
tember 10.000 applications. 

We did not furnish blank applications to any other parties than the clerks of the court. AVe did not furnish 
any to the Tammany committee. 

25 Evidence, 3331, 3355, 3362. Moses D. Gale, chairman of the Tammany Hall natural¬ 
ization committee, testifies : 

We had an office at the corner of Centre street and Tryon Row, in the basement. It was in a lager-beer 
saloon kept by a man named Pfeffe, at No. 1 Centre street. * * * * There was a branch office 
at Tammany. 

3336. Q. How many persons were employed at this particular office, No. 1 Centre street?—A. I think in the 
neighborhood of 20. 

3362. Q. How many sets of naturalization blanks did you procure and furnish?—A. That I cannot say; I 
certified to Mr. Pickford’s bill and referred it to the finance committee. Blanks were ordered as they were 
wanted. I should think there were several thousand of them. 

26 Gale says: 

A. My impression is that there were over 40,030 tickets furnished to the committee. How many were 
left I do not know.”—Evidence, 3361-3377. 


X 



14 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


All tliis must have had some purpose. 2 ' 1 And this purpose was so well 
understood that certificates of naturalization in large numbers were issued 
for aliens residing in other counties Avho never appeared in court. 

II. —Specific evidence of various frauds. 


1 .—Naturalization certificates fraudulently procured or issued in October , 
1868, to persons never appearing in court. 

That certificates of naturalization were issued in great numbers from 
the supreme and superior courts 28 especially the former, and were deliv¬ 
ered to persons who never appeared in court or took any oath of alle¬ 
giance, and all of which were therefore fraudulent and void, is proved 
by evidence so abundant that it would be impracticable here to refer to 
it. In the language of one of the witnesses they were u sent broadcast 
all over the city.*’ 29 

The fact was notorious, 30 and could not be otherwise. 

INDIVIDUAL INSTANCES. 

Individual instances in great numbers were proved, 31 but it was imprac¬ 
ticable to pursue the inquiry further in a field so extensive. 


27 The dates of furnishing blanks to these two courts were— 


Date. 

Applications. 

Certificates. 

SUPERIOR COURT. 

October 2... 


10 , 000 

October 3.... 

10, 000 

October 8 . 

10 , 000 
10 , 000 

October 15......._......._..._____...___..... 


October 16. 

20, 000 

Total .........-......_.... 


30, 000 

30, 000 

SUPREME COURT. 

September 16. 

September 19. 

10, 000 

10, 000 
25, 000 

5, 000 

10, 000 

9, 000 

October 6.___........_......_...___...._.... 

5, 000 
5,000 

October 12._..............._.................._..._..._ 

October J3... 

October 15..... 

10 , 000 

October 16. 

5, 000 

5, 000 

October 19. 


October 20..... 

10, 000 

October 22.... 

5,000 

Total...... 


75, 000 39, 000 



28 Evidence, 413, 425, 1085, 2103, 1364. 

29 Evidence, 1783, 368. 

30 Evidence, 276,296, pages 26-28; Evidence, 2847, 3088, 3768. 



Evidence, 1846 


Theodore Allen, 9171, says : 

James Goff and his brother were engaged in procuring naturalization certificates. I saw a number of 
papers that were sent to Connecticut. I saw the two Goffs have 500 naturalization papers that they had sold 
for 50 cents apiece to send to Connectiut. I suppose 1,000 were sent to Brooklyn that I saw them have. 
They contracted for these papers, they said, at 50 cents a head. They were to send them to Brooklyn and 
Hartford, I believe. 










































ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK, 


15 


BY THE QUANTITY. 

The existence or distribution of thousands in u bundles” 32 and u quan¬ 
tities” was proved in like manner, until it was found impracticable to go 
further. 

A naturalization office at No. G Centre street procured from the 
supreme court and sold certificates on an extensive scale—the u red tick¬ 
ets, ” 33 to pay clerk’s fees, being supplied by Tammany Hall. This office 
was superintended by Benjamin B. Rosenberg, afterwards indicted in 
the United States circuit court for some of his naturalization frauds. 

Wm. T. Simms called on Rosenberg on Monday, October 19, and he 
describes what occurred thus: 

Rosenberg asked me what I wanted of him. I told him that I was from Yonkers ; that I 
had 20 or 30 friends at Yonkers who wanted naturalization papers, and that I had no wit¬ 
nesses or principals. Said I, “Can you or can you not get me papers for those men? If 
you cannot, say it, because I do not wish to begin it and then tail. If you cannot, I will 
seek elsewhere.” He asked me what party I was from, and I told him the democratic party. 
He said, “ I can get them, without fail. I have sold 7,000 of them.” I told him I would 
return later in the afternoon with the names, as they were then incomplete. I did return in 
the afternoon, but without the memorandum of names, telling him that I was still unable to 
complete the names, but that I would return in the morning. On Tuesday morning I went 
back with a list of these five names: Patrick O’Brien, John J. Mercer, Antonio Gomez, 
Alex. N. McCann, and Adolph Slechelseine. I handed him the memorandum, and asked 
him to let me have the papers that afternoon, if he could. He said that was impossible, but 
that 1 could have them by 6 o’clock. I left the office and went about my business, and at 6 
o’clock I returned. As I went into the saloon he immediately arose. I walked directly 
back to the rear part of the saloon, where there was a dark room, which I entered. Rosen¬ 
berg followed me in. He handed me the five papers which I now hold in my hand, and I 
handed him a ten-dollar bill. Either then or at a prior interview he said to me, “I do no,t 
make this money, but you present me with $10, and I give you five papers.” That is, in 
substance, all I know about these five papers. 

94. Q. Were the names which you furnished to him, and which are filled into these papers, 
real or fictitious names ? 

A. They are fictitious names. 

95. Q. What did you do with the papers after you got them ? 

A I brought them to Marshal Murray and gave them to him. I identified them at the 
time with my initials. These are the same papers. Rosenberg showed me a list of over 
5,000 names for which he said he had got certificates. I saw the last number, which I think 
was 5,900 odd. 34 

The records of this office cannot now be found. 35 

TO OTHER COUNTIES.* 

Certificates of naturalization issued from the supreme court in New 
York city were distributed to other counties, to persons who never 
appeared in court. 

Bernard Skelly, president of a democratic club at Verplanck’s Point, 
Westchester county, was supplied with from 50 to 100 in one lot, “ more 

32 Evidence, 263, a “bundle;” 382, a “hundred;” 358,516, as to Florence Scannel; 629, 
637, 74U, 767, 775, 1115, and 629 implicates Charles Edward Norton, president democratic 
club, 22d ward, as engaged in the business. 

Evidence, 1699, 1114, 1253, 1479, 1783, “many;” 1806, 1879, 1978, 2061, as to Hon. 
Henry Waltman; 2103, Fred. Winters engaged in the business; 2779£, 2805, 3299, 4132, 
“a great many;” 4163, 5543, 368, (50 fraudulent in one district, and estimated one-fifth 
of all.) 

33 Evidence, 4174. 3338, 3360, 802, 860, 

The German democratic naturalization committee in charge of this office was supplied also 
in part with blanks by the Tammany Hall naturalization committee, (Evidence, 3356,) and 
its chairman, G. W. Herman, was a member of the Tammany naturalization committee and one 
of the city supervisors, (3364, 4168, 4174.) The four clerks in this office who aided Rosen¬ 
berg were paid by the committee of which Herman was chairman, (830, 832,) or by Herman 
himself, (862.) 

See Evidence, 683, 796, 165. 

34 Evidence, 95, 877. 35 Evidence, 875,948. 

* To other States, 9174. 




16 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


or less” 26 for residents of liis locality, and Calvin Frost was supplied 
with 150 in one lot, which were distributed from the democratic club- 
room at Peekskill in the same county. He testifies: 

I acted with the committee in this town. I took about 60 or 70 men to New York city to 
get their naturalization papers. I took them down in the steamboat in the morning, and 
took them to the City Hall. I had their papers properly made out. Another gentleman, 
whom I did not know, took ehargeof them. That gentleman told me it was unnecessary to 
bring the men down in the present state of things; that they could procure the papers with¬ 
out. On that a list of names was furnished, and I delivered them to a person whom I did 
not know. This gentleman, who spoke to me about it, told me to send the names ; which 
I did of about—well, I think, somewhere near 150 names Then, as I was passing in the 
street one evening, another person—ditferent from the one I handed the names to, one I had 
never seen before, a stranger to me—came up to me and handed me a roll ot papers done up 
in brown paper, addressed to me. I took it to my office and opened it, and it was these 
naturalization papers. On these men calling for them I took them to the club-room, and 
there they were distributed by several parties. * * * No witnesses sent down as vouch¬ 

ers : only the names of the persons to be naturalized. 

With this evidence it may be reasonably inferred that similar and 
more extensive frauds were perpetrated in this and other counties. 

TO PERSONS WITHOUT REQUEST. 

In addition to this there is a large class of fraudulent certificates issued 
to aliens who not only never appeared in court, but who never asked 
that application should be made for them. They were left at houses, 
stores, and other places, or sold or given away. Individual instances 
are numerous. 37 

2 .—Certificates on fictitious names , to be used by “ repeaters.” 

The evidence discloses the fact that certificates of naturalization were 
procured from the supreme court to fictitious names, and delivered to 
aliens and citizens to enable them to register and vote as “ repeaters.” 

John McClusky, who had been a clerk for John H.McCunn when he was 
city judge, and afterwards, up to January last, a clerk for City Judge 
Bussell, procured some 40 certificates, all on fictitious names, which he 
delivered to foreigners and citizens. The applications were prepared by 
him, Edward Bitter, and Theodore Taylor, 38 clerks of Judge Bussell, 
with signatures of fictitious applicants and witnesses ; and without pro¬ 
ducing applicants or witnesses in court the certificates were issued. 39 

On the day of the election McClusky was engaged in aiding “repeat¬ 
ers,” and the purpose of these fraudulent certificates may be readily under¬ 
stood. The practicability of procuring certificates on fictitious names is 
proved by other instances. 40 These are some of the detected frauds— 

hose concealed can well be inferred. 

36 Evidence, 74 J 9. 

37 See Evidence heretofore referred to. 

38 Taylor confirms the evidence. Charles E. Loew, the clerk of the supreme court, was 

ummoned to appear before the'committee in New York on the 6th February, and bring these 

» apers, but he disobeyed the process. He has since been requested to appear in Washington 
with the papers, but refused. A subpoena was issued for him, but he teas out of the city. He 
i ubsequently appeared before the committee, but refused to produce the papers. [See also 
Evidence, 1694-1894.] 

39 Evidence, 7749. 

40 Evidence, 2,31,35,70,95,151,200,613,2697. 

Evidence, 222. Logan McDonald gives the result of his interview with Rosenberg on 21st 
October, thus: 

I gave him a list of names, and asked him if he could not furnish me naturalization papers for these parties. 
He wanted to know who sent me, and I gave him the name of a president of a campaign club up town—the 
Twentieth ward Empire Club. He said that he could get them for me, and wanted to know if 1 was going to 
S3 11 them. I told him of course not. He then said that the papers would be ready for me about half-past 5 
o’clock in the afternoon, and that I could get them by paying him two dollars for each certificate ; and that if 
I needed 500 I could have them at the same rate by simply telling the names of the men for whom I wanted 
them. 

223. Q. Did he require any witness to make proof as to the right of the applicants to be naturalized?— 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


17 


3 .—Naturalization frauds in various counties. 

It lias been impracticable for tlie committee to investigate fully the 
naturalization frauds practiced in the interest of the democratic party in 
any of the counties of the State. But for the purpose of ascertaining their 
prevalence and character, sufficient evidence has been taken to show 
that certificates of naturalization were extensively issued in modes not 
authorized by law, or to persons not entitled to naturalization, or other¬ 
wise fraudulently in the counties of Orange, 41 Ulster, 42 Monroe, 43 Westches- 

A. No, sir; he stated that the two dollars was to pay the persons who personated the principals and the wit¬ 
nesses ; that he did not want to make anything, and he did not want me to make anything by the operation. 

224. Q. Then he had persons to personate the applicants and the witnesses ?—A. So he stated to me 

225. Q. Were the names you gave him real or fictitious?—A. I believe they were fictitious. 

Judge J. H. MeCunn gives this evidence: 

3643. Q. Did you not often find that persons attempted to be naturalized Under the minor form who were 
not entitled to be ?—A. Plenty of them. I found men attempting to be naturalized who had been bom here ; 
for what purpose I cannot tell you. I could detect them from their conversation, and I arrested many such 
men. 

3644. Q. Were they trying to be naturalized under other names than their own ?—A. Undoubtedly. 

And see Evidence, 2. 

41 In Orange county hundreds of naturalization certificates were issued by the county clerk, 
and some three deputies appointed by him without authority of law, who, while the court 
was in session, went into different rooms outside of the court-room, and there took affida¬ 
vits and issued papers. It is further shown that on one occasion the judge, when about to 
leave court, informed the clerk, “ If you do not see me in court, the court is open all the 
same,” and then left the court-room, remaining absent nearly three hours, during the most 
of which time parties were naturalized and certificates issued by the clerk and his illegal 
appointees to the extent of at least J 00 for this single day.—Evidence, 8876, 8877, 8878, 
8879, 8880, 8884, 8887 and 8888. 

A large number of naturalization certificates were also received from the courts in New 
Y r ork city by parties who never applied therefor.—Evidence, 8595, 8598, and 8599; 8675, 
8677, and 8678 ; 8688, 8692, 8815, 8816, 8822, 8833, and 8826. 

Richard Tracy, a resident of Port Jervis, testified : 

A week or ten days before the election I received a letter, whether there was a signature to it or not I can¬ 
not tell, notifying me that I would receive a box with some 50 or 60 odd naturalization papers for parties in 
our town. I was not to know any of these men, but they were to call there. I was to leave the box in some 
conspicuous place where they could get the papers. Other parties were to instruct them where and how to 
get them. All the papers were called for and taken except 14 or 17. 

8896. Q. What did } r ou do with the box when it came ?—A. I stuck it behind the counter in a case. 

8897. Q. Was it left open there ?—A. Yes, sir. There was a cover on it—on the back. It was a cream tar¬ 
tar box. Whenever I saw a person coming whom I had reason to suspect was coming to get one of these 
papers, I would get out of the way, so as not to get too closely implicated in the matter. 

8898. Q. Were the names already inserted in these papers?—A. I believe they were. I did not examine the 
whole of them, but they were of such as I looked at. 

8899. Q. I understand you to say that they were all taken from the box that stood there except 14 or 17 ?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

8900. Q. What became of those ?—A. I burned them. 

8901. Q. Would it be possible for you to produce one of that batch of papers?—A. I do not know but that 
I have one around the house. 

89C2. Q. Will you endeavor to find it, and let the committee have it before we go away?—A. I have not 
the slightest objection to giving you the paper if I can find it. 

8903. Q. Do you remember whether this letter which came to you was dated in a particular place ?—A. I 
could not say. I did not take particular notice. If I remember correctly it was in the same handwriting as 
that of the signature to the paper. That is my impression. 

8904. Q. Do you remember where those papers purported to be issued—whether in New York city or not?— 
A. I could not say. 

8905. Q. Did you preserve the letter ?—A. I believe I put it in with the naturalization papers, and burnt 
them all together. 

8906. Q. Do you know of any particular persons who received those papers?—A. I do not know as I do ; I 
have seen some parties going in and out of the house, but I could not say whether they took the papers or not. 
I always walked out of the back door when I saw parties coming whom I suspected of coming to get any of 
these papers. 

8907. Q. Do you know who it was that gave them information, or was to give them information, as to where 
they were to get the papers and how?—A. No, sir. 

8908. Q. How did the box come ?—A. I think it was left at the house by some parties ; I think some four 
or five young men came in one night and left it there. I did not find it until early in the morning. I 
get up between 5 and 6 o clock in the morning, as a general thing. 

8909. Q. Do you know what the politics of these persons were, or supposed to be, who received these 
papers?—A. I supposed them to be democrats. 

42 In Ulster county about 600 aliens received certificates of naturalization, probably two- 
thirds of them furnished by the county clerk or his deputy, on application at his office, with¬ 
out any action or order of a court or judge; one man appearing before the clerk as a witness 
for between one and two hundred applicants; and in probably more than a hundred cases 
certificates were granted without production of a copy of the previous declaration of inten¬ 
tion, but on affidavit that applicants previously had them.—Evidence, 7434 to 7481. 

43 In Monroe county, during 1868, and mostly in October, 1,256 aliens received certifi. 

H. Rep. Com. 31-2 







18 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


ter, 44 Rensselaer, 45 Putnam, 46 and Green 47 — every county where any 
investigation has been made. 

cates of citizenship, and the county clerk, his deputy or assistant deputy, was in the habit 
of granting these certificates with no judge there and no court. Joseph L. Lackey, a law¬ 
yer, in Rochester, testifies in relation to the court records: 

From Palmyra, in Wayne county, we found two papers issued to Timothy Cosgrove on the same day. One 
of them we found was issued on a declaration that he came to this country under the age of 18 years, and the 
other on the first paper of a man by the name of Ryan, I think. So Mr. Cosgrove had two papers. 

7553. Q. Were these aliens witnesses for each other ?—A. Yes. There are numerous instances of that kind. 

There w r ere 45 of this class from Livingston county who came to Monroe to be naturalized.— 
Evidence, 7560. 

Certificates were issued to persons having made no previous declaration of intention, and 
not otherwise entitled.—Evidence, 7562. 

Anthony Biser testifies that he had his first paper “just a yearthat he gave it to the clerk 
at Rochester, who gave it back and gave him a certificate of naturalization. (Evidence, 
7567.) This was on a “minor application,” (Evidence, 7589,) though Biser was 42 years 
old when he came to this country, (Evidence, 7583.) 

These facts will explain why aliens went from Livingston county to Monroe to be natural¬ 
ized. 

44 In Westchester county 502 aliens were naturalized in 1868, of whom 138 were in October. 
J. Malcomb Smith, the county clerk, says: “ The practice in the county court was to go 
before the clerk and get [naturalization certificates] from the clerk, when the court was not in 
session.” (Evidence, 5736.) This practice was continued to September. (Evidence, 6857.) 
Most of these certificates were illegal and void. 

The business was so conducted that on the 3d of October, undoubtedly after public atten¬ 
tion had been drawn to fraudulent naturalizations, 13 oiders of naturalization, made August 
29, and 2 of August 21, are cancelled on the record. (Evidence, 6867.) When one day 
requires so extensive correction confidence in all must be seriously impaired. 

Thomas Smith, a coroner and justice of the peace, at Hastings-on-the-Hudson, says he 
“ introduced as many as thirty people” in the clerk’s office, a considerable portion of whom 
were not entitled to naturalization or were furnished with certificates illegally issued. The 
clerk and the coroner were democrats.—See Evidence, 2292, 2753, 4080 to 4107. 

45 In Rensselaer county, at Troy, during 1868, a justice’s court issued 2,358 certificates of 
citizenship, two-thirds of them in September and October, and of these 2,002 profess to be 
on “ minor applications !” Irving Hayner, a lawyer of Troy, testifies that applicants “ were 
brought in there in squads of 10, 15, and 20 at a time.” The clerk would administer an 
oath, but— 

Would pay no attention whether they observed the formula or not. He would then make out a list of 
names from the bpok and hand it to some democrat in attendance, who seemed to be overseer of the natural¬ 
izations. He would bring the squads there, coming from different portions of the country or adjoining coun¬ 
ties, make out a list of names, and the leader would take it to the justice of the court. The justice would 
sometimes be in his office, south of the court-house, in a separate building from the court-room, and sometimes 
in some of the saloons adjoining the court-house, in there with his friends drinking. The party would take 
the list of the names and march the candidates out. The justice would tell them to hold up their right hands, 
and administer the oath without examining the parties, or questioning them in his office or in the saloon, as 
the case might be. I have no doubt that one-half or uvo-thirds of all the naturalizations were done in that 
way ; that is, in the manner of swearing by the justice. 

The records consist of printed blank applications bound up in a book ; and the witness says : 

The clerk would not fill up the blanks at the time, or before the oath was administered. All the writing 
in the blanks would be the name of the alien, and sometimes the country from which they came ; and proba¬ 
bly a couple of hundred pages of that book were not filled up until a week or two after election day. I saw 
men, who had the appearance of being 50 or 60 years old, swear that they came here as minors. Perhaps 
along about the 20th or 23d of October they would come from Washington county and Columbia county, in 
squads of 30 or 40, and perhaps more, all swearing that they came here under the age of 18 years. The num¬ 
ber from Washington county naturalized under 18 was 257 ; over 18, 10, who were soldiers. From Columbia 
county, under 18, 108 ; over 18, 3. From Cohoes, under 18,160 ; over 18, 21. I examined the records to find 
how many of the aliens who were naturalized were witnesses for each other. I find there were 595 and 
upwards. I never saw the judge there more than two or three times while I was in the court from time to 
time. It was seldom that he remained there while the naturalizations were going on. I saw the clerk engaged 
in having aliens sign the books, administering oaths, and making out the papers, and that was done frequently 
when there was no justice present in the court,—Evidence, 7497. 

James P. Butler, a lawyer of Saratoga Springs, testifies: 

On the 23d of October Pat. Brannegan was arrested for obtaining fraudulent naturalization papers at Troy. 
A list appeared of about 25 who had put in their first declaration, and, then, within two years, the large body 
of them had all been naturalized here. This Pat. Brannegan was among those, and he, among others, was 
arrested. He had his name registered, and voted, and swore in his vote. 

Thomas Ncany, one of the justices who naturalized, testified that— 

The reason why large numbers came here from Washington, and Columbia, and Saratoga counties to be 
naturalized, their courts being in session at the same time, was that they could get naturalized more readily, 
and it was more convenient for them to come. It has been our practice for ten years to naturalize large num¬ 
bers from those counties at every fall election. 

It will be sepn, the records being left blank, except the name and sometimes the residence, 
at the time of naturalization, the evidence of this witness is thus recorded: 

[Book No. 10, containing the naturalizations last fall, produced by witness, and, after examining the bonk 





ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


19 


It is sliown that in most of these counties, during the year 1868, the 
clerks of the county courts have been issuing certificates extensively 
without any proof made in court or before a judge, and without any 
order of such court or judge. Those certificates are, of course, utterly 
void. 


DEMOCRATIC NATURALIZATION OFFICES IN THE CITY. 

The Tammany Hall organization appointed a standing committee on 
naturalization about the 25th of September, who established an office in 
a lager-beer saloon at No. 1 Centre street, which employed about 20 
clerks. 48 Moses D. Gale, chairman of this committee, says: 

The duty of the clerks was, when a party came and stated that he wanted to get out his 
papers, to fill out the blanks, all ready for the party to appear before the court with his wit¬ 
ness. He would give the name of his witness, state what description of paper he wanted to 
get, whether as a minor or his second paper. The clerk would fill out the application with 
the name of the applicant and the witness, and then send a messenger over with a man to 
the court to facilitate them in getting through. 

The practice always has been to furnish an order in the shape of a [red] ticket upon the 
clerk of the court, who usually charged it against the naturalization committee of Tammany 
Hall. The usual practice has been for the clerks to make up their statements and send 
them to me, and I would then make a draft upon the chairman of the finance committee for 
so much money in payment. 49 

There was a branch office at Tammany Hall, 50 another in the 10th 
ward . 51 

Over 40,000 of these red tickets were procured. There were various 
“outside offices” of the same &ort; and Mr. Gale testifies that: 

The general committee of Tammany Hall has been always liberal enough to furnish any 
outside democratic organizations with facilities to get their naturalizations. 

Blanks and “red tickets” were furnished accordingly. 

The sale of fraudulent certificates, including those to fictitious names 
by Bosenberg’s office, has been shown. 

Blank applications in large numbers were filled up and the names of 
applicants and witnesses signed thereto in these offices ready for use in 
the courts. 52 

The mode in which this was done may be inferred from the character 
of the certificates shown to have been issued. 

The facilities afforded for false personations will be seen from the evi¬ 
dence of Mr. Meeks, a clerk in the supreme court, as follows : 

3453. Q. Were there any means taken to identify the party who brought the application, 
as being the party who appeared in court? Was he brought over in charge of an officer, or 
did he bring his own paper ?—A. He brought his own paper. 

3454. Q. Then you do not know that the party who presented the paper to you was the- 
same that appeared in court?—A. No, sir; we had no means of knowing that. 

And this was at a time when 718 were being naturalized each day by 
one judge. 

And as a general rule, when the applications were brought into court, 
the deputy clerks who attested the oath of the professed applicants and 


and consulting with the clerk, the witness stated that he did not know how the minors were designated by 

the clerk. 

The explanation of the clerk is that in filling the blanks wherever the name of the country of the applicant 
appeared in the concluding part of bis application he was not a minor. In all other cases he filled them up as 
minors.]—Evidence, 7514. 

46 Certificates of naturalization were sent to persons who never appeared in court to procure 
them, in Putnam county.—Evidence, 2439. 

47 In Green county the clerk, or his deputy, naturalized without the presence of a judge — 
Evidence, 7482—7496. 

48 Evidence, 3329, 699, 640, 685, 2062, 2453, 49 Evidence, 3338, 3947. 

eo Evidence, 3335. 61 Evidence, 3352, 3378. 

6 ^ Evidence, 3477, 3409, 3406,3422,3639,3004, 3947. 



20 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


witnesses on these papers, did so, not in the presence of the court, but 
in another room. 53 

There was an office in the basement of the old City Hall, with three 
clerks, whose mode of filling in blanks on one occasion is thus described: 

The three clerks would fill in each the name furnished to him as that of the applicant. It 
would be filled in as that of the applicant in three places, and the clerk would then sign the 
name of the applicant in each instance. In every case which I saw, each of the clerks filled 
in the name of Patrick Goff as that of the attesting witness. The clerks did not sign the 
name of “ Patrick Goff” but put it “Patrick Goff—his mark.’* Whether Patrick Goff exists 
or not I do not know ; at any rate he was not there, nor any one of the applicants whose 
names were .signed. This was common to nearly every case. 54 

The witness also says: 

One batch of clerks could not get through the whole lot, and the foreman handed a list of 
names on some sheets of brief paper to some one else, and told him to fill them up. The 
man said, “Shall I make these in the supreme or superior?” to which the reply was: 
“ Make them in the supreme ; they go through easier.” On the 15th of October one of the 
clerks told me that up to that date they had put 20,000 through the mill, (that was the 
expression used by him ; I employed it first to him and he adopted it,) and that they expected 
to get through another 20,000 before election. 55 

Henry Waltman, member of the assembly, 56 had a naturalization office 
at No. 86 Avenue O, and he says: u each ward had a general committee 
and acted for itself.” 57 

WHAT THE FRAUDS WERE. 

Among the frauds practiced under the naturalization laws were: The 
false personation of applicants for naturalization ; 58 perjury of icitnesses 

63 Evidence, 3425, 3438. 

^Evidence, 1330. And these are used in court. Evidence, 7671. 

Maximilian Boeck testifies that he had not resided in the United States five years : was 24 
years of age when he came ; never took out his first papers, but he got a certificate of natu¬ 
ralization. He says : 

I got it here in the City Hall room—No. 12, in the basement. I did not go up into the court-room to get 
it. * * * 

1473. Q. Did they have papers scattered about ?—A. Yes; there were about 200 or 300 men in there. I 
said, “I want my first papers.” He says, “ What is the reason you don't take the whole?” I said, “Ihavenot 
got my first.” He said, “ That don’t make any difference—have you got $2 ?” I said yes. I gave him $2, and 
then he said, 1 ‘ Now you go home.” I got the paper. 

1482. Q. Do you know what sign was up over this room in the basement?—A. Yes; “ Sheriff’s Office, 
No. 12.” 

^’Evidence, 1344, 1776. 

^Evidence, 2239, 2253,2062,2104,2257,2812, 2846. His office prepared about 500. 

67 Henry Lyle’s evidence in part is as follows : 

2625. Q. (State what you know of certificates of naturalization being issued by Judge McCunn of the superior 
court, and in the supreme court by Judge Barnard.—A. I was in that business during the months of Septem¬ 
ber and October, 1868, at 33 Chatham street. I would fill up the applications, go before the judges and put 
the men through. During the month of October I would come down in the evening and put the men through 
before Judge Barnard of the supreme court, who held the night session. I would sign the names of the appli¬ 
cants to these blanks; sometimes I would sign the applicant’s name and sometimes he would himself, or if 
anybody else happened to be around he would sign it. 

4628. Q. How did you procure certificates of naturalization before Judge McCunn?—A. I would take the 
papers down to the court and give them in to the clerk. He would call ray name, and I would then go around 
and swear to the truth of the affidavits before the judge. After that I would go around to the clerk’s 
desk; if the man was not there I would take the oath of allegiance, or if the man was too old to go through 
otherwise, the man himself would go round. 

4629. Q. How many certificates of naturalization did you procure during these two months ?—A. I cannot 
tell, but I should judge from 600 to 1,000; that I would swear to. Sometimes I would swear to twenty or 
thirty and sometimes fifty a day. 

4630. Q. State if you would sign your name to the affidavits as witness in all cases, or what name was 
signed?—A. I signed different names just as it happened to come into my head. I got a good many papers out 
for men who were not there at all, by being both witness and applicant myself, from both the superior court 
and the supreme court. 

4638. Q. With what did you pay for those naturalization papers?—A. With red tickets. 

4639. Q. Where did you get them,?—A. I got some from Judge Gale, in Centre street, some from Mr. Pettit 
and some from different parties around the City Hall that I knew. 

4640. Q. State if you are acquainted with Judge McCunn ?—A. I am. 

4641. Q. State if he is acquainted with you?—A. He is. 

4642. Q. Did you have any conversation with Judge McCunn about this naturalization business ?—A. I was 
up before him one night and was a witness for a man by the name of Spirit; I told him my name, and he 
said it ought to be Spirit too. After that I would sometimes sign my name as Spirit, as a witness. 

4643. Q. What else was said by Judge McCunn ?—A. That was all, though he told me at one time that if 
they did not register any of the men that I got papers out for, they would compel them to register them. 

See Evidence, 4664, 4741. 

58 Evidence, 1369, 2223, 711, 1989, 2116, &c., 1349, 1425, 1450,1348,1451. 




ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


21 


under real and assumed names ; 59 the fabrication of applications for natural¬ 
ization and oaths in support of them , with names of applicants and witnesses 
forged ; 60 the granting of certificates of naturalization in fictitious names ; 
and on applications regular in form , but without the presence of any appli¬ 
cants , bl a nd to persons not entitled to them. 62 

HOW TO ACCOMPLISH THESE. 

% 

To accomplish these it was necessary to secure the active co operation 
of some of the courts or their passive acquiescence, or negligence so gross 
as to raise an irresistible presumption of fraudulent participation. 

HOW TO PREVENT THEM. 

These frauds could not escape the knowledge of the courts, and might 
have been prevented by the honest exercise of adequate care, scrutiny, 
and deliberation. 

HOW THIS COULD NOT BE DISCOVERED; REPORTERS AND SPECTATORS DRIVEN FROM 

THE SUPREME COURT. 

R. AY. McAlpine, esq., reporter of the New York Tribune, 63 testifies : 

I made but one visit to a naturalization court in this city, near the time of the November 
election. I sat for perhaps half an hour before I saw anything particular being done except 
simply calling out names. At a given time a certain number of persons whose names had 
been called were gathered in the middle of the court-room, and then the process of swearing 
these men in as citizens was gone into. What I noticed was that there could not, by any 
possibility, have been more than two or three men who could have touched the Bible at the 
same time, and I noticed that when the judge directed that those who could not reach 
the Bible should raise their right hands, there were very few in that crowd who raised 
any hand. The judge, while either waiting for a new batch of men to swear in, or for some 
other reason, made some remarks from the bench in reference to certain strictures that had 
appeared in the papers of the city, and spoke of the writers as a set of scoundrels who had 
charged him falsely. He said he intended to see that those worthy citizens in front of him 
should be protected in their rights. Then he ordered the court-room to be cleared. He said : 
“Those who have not come here for the purpose of being naturalized, or who are not here 
by order of the court, will immediately leave. If they do not immediately leave they will 
be ejected by the officers of the court.” At the beginning of the address I had risen from 
my seat, and, before the judge had fairly concluded his remarks, an officer of the court took 
me by the arm. “ Say,” said he, “ did you come here to be naturalized ?” “No,” said I, 

“ I did not.” “ Then the sooner you get out of here the better.” So, without letting go my 
arm at all, he marched me off towards the public entrance of the court-room. That had been 
locked and bolted after my entrance into the room. Then we were obliged to pass through 
that crowd of as yet unnaturalized citizens, past the judge’s bench, and through the private 
door. This was the supreme court, before Judge Barnard. 

And it seems to liave been no unusual occurrence 64 to exclude all but 


69 Evidence, 1369, 1425, 1450,4664. 

60 Evidence, see previous notes and 4650, 7606,7648,2039. 

61 Evidence, 2137, 1362,4646,4661,4664,4668,4709, and see evidence of Theodore Allen. 

^Evidence, 988, 1702, 1893, 2137. 

63 Evidence, 2121, 1410. 

64 M. R. Leverson testifies, on the 22d October— 

I was refused admittance to Judge Barnard’s court ; there was no admittance for anybody except appli¬ 
cants and witnesses. The court was held with closed doors. 

1410. Q. Who refused you admittance ?—A. The usher at the door asked me if I was an applicant or a wit¬ 
ness, and I told him no, and he said: “ Then you can’t come in ; none but applicants or witnesses are admitted.” 
I got in by the other door. An usher then came to me and said that there was no admittance, except for 
applicants or witnesses, and I then went out, having been in there only a few minutes. I think it was before 
the court had organized for the night, as there was nothing doing. 

1411. Q. So that you saw nothing there on the 22d? s -A. Nothing except the fact of the court being closed 
to the public. I passed there again at 10 o’clock, and by the lights and the crowd outside and shadows within 
I presumed the court was still sitting. 

Confirmed by Loew, 1561, 3771,3799. 

Mr. Jarvis says: 

1980. Q. Have you ever been present in the supreme court during the naturalization of citizens A. No, 
sir; I tried to get in one day to see what they were doing, but I could not get in. 



22 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


applicants for naturalization and witnesses, or even to drive out of this 
court spectators observing its proceedings. 6 ® 

Colonel George Bliss, jr., says that on one occasion it was with u some 
little difficulty he succeeded in persuading the officer (of Judge McCumfis 
court) to let him inf 706 

What purpose there was in this may be inferred from the character 
of the proceedings. 


4 .—The Neic Yorlc courts. 

THE COMMON PLEAS—AN HONEST COURT. 

It is in evidence by a distinguished and upright judge 67 of the New 
York common pleas, that the practice in that court was never to natu¬ 
ralize men in u gangs,” and the opinion was decidedly expressed that 
u more than one person cannot be naturalized at the same time to com¬ 
ply with the requirements of the law.” He testifies, too, that— 

The length of time required fairly and properly to naturalize an applicant depends much 
on the intelligence of the witness; sometimes it has been done in from three to five minutes, 
sometimes it will take more, because it involves the examination of the applicant and the 
witness, and perhaps a re-examination of them, to see if the two stories are harmonious, but 
this does not include the time occupied by administering the final oath of allegiance. 68 

Judge McCuim, however, says he can examine two witnesses in a 
minute! Z 69 and the evidence shows that his practice was often in excess 
of even that!! 

When it is remembered that time is consumed in calling applicants 
and witnesses, and in their withdrawal to make room for others, and in 
explaining to witnesses the facts to be proved not generally well under¬ 
stood, a judge could not actually and properly naturalize perhaps over 
12 in an hour, and especially when fraud and imposition may be reason¬ 
ably suspected, and should therefore be strictly guarded against. 


65 Mr. Leversou gives his experience in the supreme court, on one occasion, thus : 

On one occasion that I was taking notes I was within the bar, and the judge ordered the space within the 
bar to be cleared. The usher came to me and told me that the judge had ordered the space within the bar to 
be cleared. I told him I was a member of the bar, and had a right to be there. He went to the judge and 
came back to me, and said that the judge required the space within the bar to be cleared. I therefore went 
without the bar and stood on a form at the extreme end of the court. It was while I was standing there that 
I heard Lusk say that he did not know who his witness was. I was observed to be continuing taking notes, 
and just as another batch had been sworn in the way I have named. After they were sworn, when they were 
being called over to receive their certificates, a further order was given by the judge to clear the court. There 
had been no disturbance whatever in the court, and no more noise than was absolutely unavoidable from the 
shuffling of so many feet going up and crowding around the Bibles. The other people without the bar went 
out; I did not; the usher, not the same one who had first spoken to me, came up and told me that the judge had 
ordered the court to be cleared. I told him that it was a public court and that I was a member of the bar, and 
that on both accounts I had a right to be there. He began to forcibly eject me. I then called out to the judge 
that I was a member of the bar, and called upon him to protect my rights. I did not hear of anything done in 
consequence of that; I only know that I was ejected. I cannot say positively that Judge Barnard heard my 
appeal to him for protection, but I express my belief that he must have done so, because I spoke loudly, 
intending that he should hear me. Still, being at the extreme end of the court-room, with a man hustling me 
out, of course I cannot say positively that the judge heard me. 

66 Evidence, 1937. Colonel Bliss says of the superior court: 

Learning that Judge McCunn was iu the common council chamber, holding another branch of the same 
court, I went there and found a very large crowd in the entry, gathered about the two doors leading into the 
room. They were apparently letting them in by one door and out by the other. I went to the door by which 
they were coming out, and with some little difficulty I succeeded in persuading the officer to let mein. I took 
a seat there and found a string of people coming up. 

67 Hon. John R. Brady, for 13 years a judge, elected as a democrat. Evidence, 7208. 

68 The proceedings in this court were honestly conducted. Nathaniel Jarvis, jr, the clerk 
* of this court, says : 

The action of the court alone would take probably about five minutes. There were many cases where I 
knew the court to be 20 minutes iu the examination of a witness, and then to reject the applicant; but the 
ordinary time, with an intelligent man, answering truly the questions put to him, would not be over five 
minutes. Evidence, 1986, 1952, 1937, 1966. 

69 Evidence, 3651, 3362.—Ryan, 4399, 3449—Nolan, 4382 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


23 


THE SUPREME AND SUPERIOR COURTS—JUDGES BARNARD AND M’CUNN—FRAUDULENT 

NATURALIZATIONS AIDED BY TIIE GREAT NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS ENTERTAINED 

EACH DAY. 

The supreme court , for the first time in its history, commenced natural¬ 
izing in New York city October 6, 18G8. 70 That a single judge could 
honestly naturalize a daily average of 718 persons for 16 days in suc¬ 
cession cannot be possible. 71 

As to the superior court, Judge John H. McCunn testifies: 

Judge Garvin and myself were the principal judges engaged in naturalization. I always 
took my seat at 12 o’clock, and sometimes before 12, and we pursued the ordinary course 
pursued in the court from the time that I first knew it. Judge Garvin sat from the time the 
court was opened in the morning, about 10 o’clock, until 12 o’clock, and I would then relieve 
him. I sat one night until 11 or 12 o’clock. 72 

Mr. Callan, who examined the “greater part of 17,572 applications” for 
naturalization on file in this court, states that about eight-ninths of them 
were allowed by Judge McCunn. 73 

The number ordered in this court for several days each was, respect¬ 
ively, 2,109, 1,868, 1,856, 1,842, 1,760, &c., and the daily average from 
October 5 to 23, inclusive, was 1,415. 

As Judge Garvin generally sat in the morning and Judge McCunn 
after noon, and with the evidence presented, it is manifest the business 
was conducted by Judge McCunn with an indecent haste which indicated 
no honest purpose to comply with the law or prevent the frauds which 
he had such abundant reason to know 74 were being perpetrated. 


70 As to the reason why this court commenced, Mr. Jarvis, the clerk of the court of com¬ 
mon pleas, says: 

I cannot, state any reason; I may have an Impression; I don’t think we naturalized them rapidly enough 
[that is in the common pleas.] 

Evidence, 1953, and see 1937. 

71 Evidence, 1335. M. R. Leverson, a lawyer in New York, says: 

Judge Barnard held his court nominally from 7 to 9 o’clock in the evening, but I have seen the session run¬ 
ning up till half-past 10 or 11 o’clock. 

72 Owen E. Westlake, general-term clerk, says : 

2029. Q. State what time the superior court met and adjourned during October.—A. The hours of meeting 
in special term were from 10 to 3, and in trial term from II to 4. 

2030. Q. State if the court sat at night.—A. I think it did on two or three occasions. 

2044. Not frequently—two or three nights.—See 3449. 

(See evidence somewhat different, 1528, 3797.) 

73 Evidence as follows : 

7679. Q. State what proportion of these applications for naturalization had on them the initials of Judge 
McCunn.—A. I should think about eight-ninths ; the others were between Judge Robinson and Garvin. 

74 The notoriety of the frauds, the number of the applications, the manner in which they 
came to the court, all would admonish judges of ordinary prudence to scrutinize carefully 
the applications. Judge McCunn’s own evidence showed the necessity for this, as follows : 

3639. Q. You have said that you have arrested some parties ; for what did you arrest them ?—A. Some for 
testifying or attempting to testify to the identity of men they had not known long enough. I did it for the 
purpose of deterring those in my presence from attempting to perpetrate frauds. 

3640. Q. How many did you arrest?—A. Over 50. 
*********** 

3579. Q. In the course of your administration of this duty, did you confer the right of citizenship upon nearly 
all who applied for it?—A. No, sir; a large proportion of these I rejected. 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

3581. Q. Did you dispose in that way of any considerable number?—A. I may have rejected, (and I am 
quite sure that Judge Garvin did, for I was on the bench with him when he was naturalizing, before his hour 
was up.) at the lowest calculation, from five to ten per cent. 

* * * * * * * * , * * * 

A. They were made by persons who supposed themselves entitled to naturalization and were not. 

^ ^ ^ ^ -jf ^ if ie n ie •¥ #r 

3643. Q. Did you not often find that persons attempted to be naturalized under the minor form who were 
not entitled to be?—A. Plenty of them. I found men attempting to be naturalized who had been born here; 
for what purpose I cannot tell you. I could detect them from their conversation, and I arrested many such men. 

3644. Q. Were they trying to be naturalized under other names than their own?—A. Undoubtedly. Some 
of them would say, “‘They will not allow me to vote,” and I would answer, “I cannot help that; you cannot 
be naturalized, for you were born here.” 

3645. Q. Then you may have naturalized “natives to the manor born,” under assumed names?—A. Very 
ew. 

See 3852, 3932*, 1757, 4483, 4377, 4888. 



24 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


NATURALIZATION FRAUDS AIDED BY NATURALIZING “ IN GANGS.” 

That applicants for naturalization, or those professing to represent 
them with their witnesses, were sworn in groups, sometimes larger and 
sometimes smaller, and without any separate examination of each wit¬ 
ness in the supreme court, not merely occasionally but habitually, is 
proved beyond controversy. 75 
As an example, some specimens of the proof are given. 

M. li. Leverson, a member of the bar, testifies, in relation to Judge 
Barnard’s court, as follows: 

1448. Question. You were in Lis (Judge Barnard’s) court about three hours and a half on 
two separate days?—Answer. Yes, somewhere thereabouts. 

1449. Q. During those hours, about how many persons do you think were put through 
there—making the estimate as well as you are able from your recollection of what you saw?— 
A. I should think, sir, about 1,800 to 2,000. 

1450. Q. In the space of three hours and a half?—A. Yes; I reckon four batches an 
hour, averaging 150 each; that would make about 1,800 or 2,000—about 600 an hour. I 
reckon that they averaged four batches of 150 each, although it might b6 a little less ; I once 
saw five batches in the hour. 

Tlie mode of proceeding in Judge McCnnn’s court is thus described 
bv Colonel Bliss: 76 

1 went there and found a very large crowd in the entry, gathered about the two doors 
leading into the room. They were apparently letting them in by one door and out by the 

Patrick Mack testifies : 

4iG3. I was chairman of the board of registrars and inspectors of the 5th election district of the 4th ward in 
the last presidential election. I was told that great frauds would be perpetrated by fraudulent naturalization 
papers, and on the day of election I swore every man who came before me of whom I had any doubts as to 
his being a legal voter. I had been a resident of the district for nearly 20 years, and know almost every legal 
voter in the district. It is a small one, consisting only of two blocks, and every person presenting a naturali¬ 
zation paper about which I had doubts I would swear if they went to a court and got their papers there, and 
in nineteen cases out of twenty the parties said they got their papers from other individuals and not from the 
court at all. I took the papers and made a private mark on them. The president of the board of aldermen 
came to me during election day and said that I was doing wrong. I told him that the police commissioners put 
me there as a republican, and I intended to do my duty. About 4 o’clock in the afternoon there came to me a 
writ of mandamus , issued by Judge Cardozo, requiringmeto appear forthwith. I told my republican colleague 
that I would adjourn the board. The democrats said “ No;” they wanted the board in session to receive names 
for registry. One of them went up to Judge Cardozo, and came back and told me I need not appear before 
morning. They wanted to get me away, so they could put as many names as they wished on the registry 
book; but when they found that I intended to adjourn the board and close up the registry, they didn’t like it, 
and so they got it arranged that I need not appear until the next morning. I adjourned the board at 6 o’clock, 
but the democratic inspector staid there taking names until 9 o’clock. They did this without any legal war¬ 
rant or authority whatever. I went up to Judge Cardozo in the morning. On my way I met several parties 
who threatened sr.e with Ludlow street jail, and I was told to save myself by pleading ignorance of tho 
law, which I did. Judge Cardozo compelled me to give the papers back and register the men. Many of 
them I knew were not legal voters. One of them, a relative of mine, told me on the day of election that he 
had voted that day in the 10th ward, and then came down to vote in my district. 

The examination of Peter Cook shows in part as follows : 

Parlies would frequently como to me to have applications for naturalization made out without any witnesses 
at all. I would question them and ask them where their witness was, and they said they had none, and would 
want me to furnish them with one. I w r ould send them away and tell them that I didn’t do that business. 
They would often go to other places to get witnesses and go before the court and get their applications through. 

4888. Q. How did you come to know that fact? —A. It was the common report. I remember two or three 
cases in particular—parties who came to me—of parties I had sent away, whom I met afterwards up in the 
City Hall with their certificates of naturalization. They told me they had picked up some man on the corner 
to act as witness for them. 

4889. Q. Did you not inform the court that these frauds were being perpetrated—that these men were being 
naturalized improperly ?—A. I told Judge McCunn of it at one time, and he told me if I ever knew of such a 
case to let him know and he would put a stop to it. But I could not watch the court to detect these parties. 

See Evidence, 1602. 

75 Evidence, 1016, 1335, 1349, 1450, 1544, 1680, 3762, 1937, 2123, 3812. As to supreme 
court see Evidence, 915, 918, 920 921, 1407, 1527, 3796, 3852. As tosuperior court see Evi¬ 
dence 915, 921, 1335, 1344, 3537, 3599, 3600, 4117, 1967, 1CT13, 1131, 2123, 3762, 3813, 3931, 
4657, 3137. 

Charles E. Loew, the clerk of the supreme court, who was in court some evenings and 
some not, admits this substantially. He says: 

The applications were handed in by the officer. The court then called off the name of the applicant. 

* * The party answered to the name, and came inside the railing. Then the witness was called, and 
he came inside. The judge would call probably eight or ten in that way, and then the oath was put to them. 

1544. Q. And in that way you would go through with a certain number?—A. Yes; with eight or ten at a 
time. 

1546. Q. How did you swear the witness?—A. “ You, John Doe, (or whateverthe name was,") and you-, 

being witnesses for the several parties who have just been sworn, do severally solemnly swear that you have 
been acquainted with the parties,” &c. 

76 See to the same effect evidence of Mc-Alpine, Leverson, and McClusky. 




I 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 25 

other. I went to the door by which they were coming out, and with some little difficulty 
I succeeded in persuading the officer to let me in. I took a seat there and found a string of 
people coming up. They came in at the other door, and when they came within eight or 
ten feet ot the judge the Bible was put in their hands, and perhaps a dozen or fifteen sworn 
at a time to make true answers. They then passed up in front of the judge. The judge had 
before him a large pile of these applications. He would take them up and ask questions 
about them, and the witness would answer. He took them up one at a time, and at first I 
noticed that the question he asked was, “Do you know this man?” The witness had no 
means of knowing who the man was that was named in the paper before the judge. I 
looked about to see where, the men to be naturalized were, and it struck me that the men to 
be naturalized were not in the room. I then went to one of the officers to ascertain the fact. 
Just as I was going to him I noticed a little noise at the door at which they were coming in, 
and heard one of the officers say to a man, “ Go out.” The man said, “ I want to be natu¬ 
ralized.” “ Well,” said the officer, “where is your witness?” “Here he is,” said the 
man. “Well, we do not want you here,” said the officer; “go out;” and he kept the 
man out and let the witness in. I then found that in no case was the person to be natural¬ 
ized allowed to come into the room. After a time the judge adopted the plan of asking the 
witness how long he had known the man—giving his name. I may be mistaken, but I 
thought he did not give the name until he saw me sitting there. It seemed so to me. It 
went on for fifteen or twenty minutes in that way. The witnesses were asked the questions 
less rapidly than before Judge Garvin, but a peculiarity in Judge McCunn’s court was that 
the persons naturalized were not present, and there were no means, of course, of identifying 
who the man was. The witnesses would then ask for their papers, and the officers would 
tell them, “ No, you can’t have the papers.” The papers were handed to a clerk in the 
court, then to an officer, and then were taken out to a room across the entry. There were 
some of them who went and took the oath of allegiance before the clerk. I cannot specify 
any man who got his paper without taking the oath of allegiance, but while I was standing 
there in the entry there were certainly many more people coming out with their papers than 
had taken the oath of allegiance. I ought to say that Judge McCunn, after he recognized 
me, called me up, and I did my business with him. In the course of the conversation he 
said, “You see how we do this with all the legal forms, and there ought to be a stop of this 
abuse of us in the papers.” I timed him. The first five minutes I was there he naturalized 
13 men, and the second five minutes 15 men. 

Mr. Leverson also says in relation to Judge McCimifis court: 

In the first place the witnesses, who appeared very frequently, appeared for different per¬ 
sons; the same witnesses appeared sometimes under different names, and sometimes person¬ 
ated applicants. With every desire to speak as charitably as possible of a gentleman who 
behaved so courteously to myself as Judge McCunn did, it would certainly be a large 
charity which should suppose that he could have failed to notice that. One single man 
appeared five-and-twenty times, at least, in a single evening under many different names. 77 
*********** 

1429. Q. How many cases deserving that sort of criticism did you see in Judge McCunn’s 
court ?—A. The bulk of them. 

***** 

1439. I should mention that I have since had a number of cases before me of persons who 
have obtained certificates in the superior court, without ever having been there at all. 

Mr. Jarvis, the clerk of the common pleas, says: 

I have been in the superior court. 

1973. Q. Did you observe the process of naturalization? —A. It was slightly different from 
our own. It was not done as it was doue in our court. * * * I heard the witness 

called; I do not think I saw an applicant; I don’t know that he was called. 

*********** 

1977. Q. You say there was no applicant present?—A. I only heard the witness called. 
In that respect it was different from the practice in our court, where both parties are called. 

Henry Lyle testifies: 

4628. Q. How did you procure certificates of naturalization before Judge McCunn?— 
A. I would take the papers down to the court and give them in to the clerk. He would 
call my name, and I would then go around and swear to the truth of the affidavits before 
the judge. After that I would go around to the clerk’s desk; if the man was not there, I 
would take the oath of allegiance, or if the man was too old to go through, otherwise, the 
man himself would go round. 

4629. Q. How many certificates of naturalization did you procure during these two 

77 Judge McCunn swears : 

I can retain faces in my memory as long as any other person of my age.—Evidence, 3582. 

Again he says: 

I have a wonderful recollection of faces.—Evidence, 3628. 



26 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


months?—A. I cannot tell, but I should judge from 600 to 1,000; that I would swear to. 

Sometimes I would swear to 20 or 30 and sometimes 50 a day. 

# # *• *• * 

4707. Q. How many times did you go there to get out applications without the applicants 
being present?—A. A good many times ; perhaps between 50 and 100 times. 

OTHER FRAUDS AIDED. 

The effect of this mode of procedure in these courts was to encourage 
and aid the operations of those engaged in falsely personating applicants 
and witnesses; in making perjury successful by the u professional” wit¬ 
nesses who swarmed in these courts; in procuring certificates to persons 
who never appeared in court; and otherwise rendering the whole busi¬ 
ness the most disgraceful mockery and fraud ever perpetrated in relation 
to naturalization in the courts of the United States. 

THE JUDGES IN THEIR OWN DEFENCE. 

Judge McCunn appeared before the committee, and his evidence is on 
record. 

It is believed that no one connected with this investigation has deemed 
it advisable to call Judge Barnard as a witness, nor did he, or any one 
for him, venture to request any such privilege. 

As he has not ventured to ask the privilege of making any denial, nor 
any one for him, this fact may be significant, especially in connection 
with his refusal to make an order to permit the committee to examine 
the files of his court and the record of his proceedings. 

OBSTRUCTIONS THROWN IN THE WAY OF THIS INVESTIGATION BY JUDGES OF THE 
SUPREME COURT AND THE CLERK, CHARLES E. LOEW. 

On the 26th December the committee, then sitting in New York city, 
asked of the clerk of the supreme court permission to cause the papers 
relating to naturalization in his office to be examined by suitable per¬ 
sons, and lists to be made of the names of applicants and witnesses. 
This was deemed essential to ascertain their number, to detect forgeries, 
and other frauds. The clerk required time to consider whether he would 
permit it thus to be done. 78 

On the 28th December he notified the committee that he did not think 
he had a u right to allow other parties to come in and take temporary 
custody of the papers without the order of the court,” and that he had 
u prepared a communication to the justices of the supreme 79 court request¬ 
ing its proper order in the matter.” A communication was submitted 
to him from the committee to be also presented to the court. The 
court never made any reply to these communications, or any order author¬ 
izing the examination. 80 

78 The evidence is thus: 

By the CHAIRMAN: 

1694. Q. The committee has adopted this resolution : 

Resolved , That the chairman of the committee be and he is hereby authorized to cause the records and 
papers in the possession of the county clerk of New York, referring to naturalization in the supreme court, 
to be examined, and a list to be made of the name of each person so naturalized, his age and residence, and 
the name and place of residence of the witness, and the day of the month on which such person was natural¬ 
ized, during the month of October, 1868. 

Under that resolution I propose to designate some suitable persons to make the examination and lists 
referred to in the resolution. State if you are willing to submit the papers at such time and place as may suit 
your convenience, and in the presence of yourself or such person as you may designate for that purpose, to 
be examined so that the list may be made in compliance with the resolution ?—A. I shall want to consider that 
question. 

1695. Q. How soon will you notify the committee of your determination?—A. On Monday next. I want 
time to consider whether I have the facilities for the committee to make the examination without taking the 
records away, for that I cannot allow. 

79 Evidence, 1894. 

^Evidence, 2718, and evidence of Loew, February 27, 1869, at Washington. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 27 

On tlie 30th December the clerk, however, gave permission to make 
the examination u under protest ” 

Subsequently the evidence of McClusky showed that application for 
naturalization had been made, and certificates of naturalization granted 
on fictitious names on the 21st and 23d of October, and, of course, on 
forged signatures of applicants and witnesses. On the 6th of February 
the clerk was subpoenaed to appear before a sub-committee of this com¬ 
mittee at New York, and produce these papers. Under pretext that it 
was not practicable to assort and produce the papers, they were not pro¬ 
duced, although it is admitted that some of them were ready and could 
have been produced. 81 

After a correspondence evincing a purpose to delay or defeat the pur¬ 
pose of the committee, Mr. Loew appeared before the committee in Wash¬ 
ington, February 17, with an opinion of the judges that it was not law¬ 
ful to remove the papers from the jurisdiction, and so their production 
was refused. 

The purpose of delay at New York can be understood. Their produc¬ 
tion there would have furnished the means of confirming the evidence 
of McClusky and Taylor as to their spurious character. 82 The investi¬ 
gations of the committee were otherwise obstructed. 83 

The power of the House of Representatives is undoubted to compel 
the production of papers, but this is more especially so when, as in this 
case, the judges and clerks derive their powers and exercise their juris¬ 
diction under acts of Congress, and as to subjects over which the States 
have no control. 

THE NUMBER OF CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION GRANTED IN THE SUPREME COURT 
IN NEW YORK CITY, IN OCTOBER, ]868. 

Edmund M. Plumb, clerk of records in the office of the clerk of the 
supreme court, testified that he “examined the records* * * onfile,* * * and” 
presented a statement showing 10,070 naturalized in October. How many 
records are not on file he does not say. But it is susceptible of demon¬ 
stration that very many more certificates of naturalization were granted 
than the applications on file show. 

BY THE BLANK CERTIFICATES. 

This court procured blank applications and certificates, as follows: 



Blank 

application. 

Blank 

certificates. 


Blank 

application. 

Blank 

certificates. 


10, 000 
10, 000 
25, 000 
5, 000 
10,000 

9, 000 

October 15.. 


10,000 

September 16. 

fipnfftmhpi 4 1 Q 

October 16. 

5, 000 
5,000 


5,000 
5, 000 

October 19. 


OotAllPl* 1 O 

October 20. 

10,000 


October 22. 

5,000 

Total. 






75, 000 

39,000 






81 Evidence of Loew at Washington, February 17. 

82 Evidence of Loew at Washington, February 17. 

83 See evidence showing that Sheriff O’Brien stationed some of his deputies at the door of 
the committee room, who arrested some of the witnesses. (Evidence, 5918, 5985, 5994, 6000, 
5483, 5485, 5498, 5499, 5512.) And see journal of the committee, with Le Barnes commu¬ 
nication to the committee. 





























28 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


The records or hies show persons naturalized as follows : 


1868. 


October 6. 6 

October 7. 8 

October 8. 379 

October 9.... 668 

October 10.... 717 

October 12. 723 

October 13. 901 

October 14. 523 

October 15. 857 


1868. 


October 16. 721 

October 17. 633 

October 19. 955 

October 20 . 944 

October 21. 773 

October 22. 675 

October 22 .. 587 


Total.10,070 


Now, if as shown, nearly 4,000 more blank certificates were procured 
on 16th September and 6th October, before naturalization in this court 
commenced, than the whole number issued, why were there procured 
25,000 more, 10,000 of which were only two days before naturalization 
ceased ? 

EVIDENCE DIRECT. 

Mr. Loew, the clerk, testifies that the blank certificates are “never 
given out,” and that certificates of naturalization were “to be given out 
only by the clerk on the order of the court.” 84 

On the 12th February, the committee directed the county clerk “to 
have counted at once, and certify to them, the number of blanks and 
certificates of naturalization now on hand for the supreme court.” On 
the 17th February, an assistant deputy clerk certified that he found 
“ after counting the same, 1,862 blank certificates of naturalization in 
this office.” 

It will be seen, therefore, the whole number of blank certificates 


received was. 39, 000 

Issued as the records show. 10, 070 

Blanks on hand. 1, 862 

—- 11, 932 


Unaccounted for.. 27, 068 


What was done with these remains to be seen. Mr. Leverson testifies 
that in October he was in the room formerly used as a sheriff’s office, 
in the basement of the City Hall building, in which the court was held, 
and clerks were engaged in filling up blank applications. 

He says: 

A. On the occasion when I saw these papers filled up with the name of Patrick Goff as 
the witness for so many persons, I saw a pile of the same kind of papers all filled up appa¬ 
rently in the same writing. When I say all it is a presumption on my part, for I had an 
opportunity of seeing only three or four in the batch, but they were all in the same hand- 

84 His evidence is— 

1580. Q. Could auy person calling at the office and wanting a blank naturalization paper like that sub¬ 
mitted to you here, get it?—A. They could get blank applications ; nothing else. 

1581. Q. Did you ever giye out any of those other papers, so as to have them go outside of the court-room, 
to any person?—A. I never gave out auy of them. 

1582. Q. Who does that; who gives out the fiual papers ?—A. If I understand you, the “final paper” is the 
certificate. 

1583. Q. Yes.—A. Well, that paper was to be given out only by the clerk, on the order of the court. 

1584. Q. The blank, then, is never given out ?—A. The blank is never given out; there never was one 
given out to my knowledge. 

1572. Q. State to the committee how it is that those blanks of the final papers, such as you saw here to¬ 
day, are procured to be printed, or by whom it is done.—A. It is done in my office; they were ordered to be 
printed by my office—by me. 

1573. Q. And they are kept in your office?—A. They are. 

1574. Q. Are they printed on separate sheets or in books?—A. Always in separate sheets. 

1575. Q. And they are sent to you in bundles ?—A. Yes. 

1576. Q. Where is it your custom to keep those blanks?- A. In the general office of the county clerk. 

(And see 1613, 1634, 3758, 3832, 3413.) 

(See Evidence, 3758, 3833.) 




































ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


29 


writing 1 . I lifted up a number and saw several in different parts of the pile; all bad Patrick 
Goff as witness, and all were in one or other of the same three handwritings. Of course I 
had no opportunity of examining the whole pile, but those seen in different parts of the pile 
seemed to be in the same handwriting, both the tilling up and the applicant’s name and the 
signature of the applicant; and to all three, besides those which I counted during the time 
that I was watching the operations—to the whole batch already prepared—the name of 
“ Patrick Goff, his mark,” was placed as witness. I say this with the explanation that I 
did not see the whole lot. One batch of clerks could not get through the whole lot, and the 
foreman handed a list of names on some sheets of brief paper to some one else, and told him 
to fill them up.. The man said, “ Shall I make these in the supreme or superior? ” to which 
the reply was: “Make them in the supreme; they go through easier.” On the 15th of 
October one of the clerks told me that up to that date they had put 20,000 through the mill, 
(that was the expression used by him ; I employed it first to him and he adopted it,) and that 
they expected to get through another 20,000 before election. Another gentleman came in 
about that time, and his statement reduced the number about one-half; he said they had 
done 10,000 and would do 20,000. My belief is that the former number was correct, and I 
will give you my reasons for so thinking. There would be four or five batches varying from 
110 to 200 in number, averaging about 140 or 150 got through by Judge Barnard in each 
hour It seems impossible at first, until you remember that the only thing the judge had to 
do was simply, as fast as the clerk turned over the papers to him, to sign his name, or, I 
think, simply his initials to the fiat. That is the way it was done—no question of any kind 
being asked. I can also speak of two occasions when I saw the court at work up to 10 and 
half past 10 o’clock at night. I cannot myself speak of more than two such occasions, but 
I can direct you to further evidence about the hours that Judge Barnard’s court was kept 
open. I sent down some persons to make certain inquiries, and I could also bring them 
before you if you desire. 

Wliat the practice in this court was may be seen from the evidence of 
Robert E. Adams, as follows: 

A. I was in the circuit room, supreme court, on the morning of October 10th last, about 
10 o’clock. I went in at the usual entrance to the court-room. There was no judge in court. 
Mr. McKean, the clerk, was there, and several young men officiating in some clerical 
capacity behind an extra table at the clerk’s desk. My business there was to look at the day 
calendar of the day before. I asked Mr. McKean, the clerk, to let me see it. He said he 
would, and told me to wait a few moments. While waiting, I was startled by somebody 
behind the counter wanting to know why that door was open by which I had come in. It 
was ordered to be shut and it was shut. While I was waiting, some men at the table along¬ 
side the clerk’s desk were very busy filling out naturalization papers. During this time, a 
party came by the door that is usually used by the judges and some officers of the court, and 
with red tickets in his hand, called out to the court as he approached the table, “ I want ten 
citizens’ papers.” “ Very well,” said McKean, “ 1 will hand them to you directly.” The 
man said, “ I am in a hurry.” McKean turned his back to his desk and opened some 
drawers that were behind him and took several of these papers. The man said, “he was in 
a hurry, and wanted to know whether Charley, or Bill, or somebody else, would not give 
him the papers.” McKean said, “Wait a minute,” or something of that kind. After a 
little interval he got up and handed him ten citizens’ papers, and the man threw down ten 
naturalization tickets. I am not sure whether it was McKean or one of the men at the desk 
who handed him the papers. In the mean time I got the calendar from Mr. McKean, found 
what I wanted, and then left. 

J703. Q. Did you examine the papers delivered to the man who came with the red tickets ? 

A. No, sir; I judged the character of the papers from their general style. They were 
printed forms, partly printed and partly written. I cannot say whether they corresponded 
with those now shown me because I did not see them opened. But the man did not ask for 
any particular kind of papers, only he wanted ten citizens’ papers. 

1704. Q. Was any writing done upon the papers that were delivered to him after became 
in ? 

A. There was nothing done to them after he came in. 86 

86 And see evidence of Theodore Allen, February 6; and witnesses showing certificates 
sent to Connecticut. And see 4645, 4661, 4664. It is quite clear certificates were issued 
without any application in court. Henry Lyle says : 

4645 Q State if you know of any certificates of naturalization being obtained there in that court without 
any witness being present at all.—A. Yes, sir ; I bad papers from that court without either applicant or wit¬ 
ness being present. . „,, , , .. x . 

4754. Q. How did you come on the 21st of October to sign the papers of these two men for naturalization as 
a witness? Did you sign their names to the papers?—A. No, sir ; I made out their papers. 

4755. Q. Were you the witness in each case ?—A. I was not. 

, 4756. Q. Who was their witness ?—A. They did not have any witnesses. I made out their papers and gave 
them to the men ; in the afternoon the men returned and gave me the certificates. 

4757. Q. Who was their witness ?—A. Henry Lyons is the name I put down on the paper. 

4758 Q You have said, in reference to these applications, that nobody was sworn at all j how do you 
know that?—A. I know it’from this fact, that the supreme court was not in session on that day between those 




30 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


This evidence, taken in connection with the fact that certificates from 
the court are found in various counties , sent to parties who never appeared 
in court to procure them , and with the evidence of numerous other 
frauds, can leave hut little doubt as to what has been done with the 
27,068 blank certificates unaccounted for. 

SUPERIOR COURT. 

Owen E. Westlake, the general term clerk in the superior court, swore 
on the 28th December, that the “ aggregate number of naturalizations in 
that court,” from October 1 to October 23 inclusive, was 26,226, 86 and for 
the year, 27,897. Joseph Meeks, deputy clerk of the court, officially cer¬ 
tified to this number f and swore it “ was an actual count.” Adam Gilles¬ 
pie, the assistant naturalization clerk, swore to the same facts, and gave 
the same number. 88 The numbers thus sworn to by three officers, and offi¬ 
cially certified to by one of the number, would seem to be sufficiently 
proved. Their evidence is quite as worthy of belief as any given afterwards 
to reduce the number, when a motive might exist to suppress those fraudu¬ 
lent on their face. The examination of the applications on file, made by 
direction of the committee, began to develope fraudulent applications, 
with forged names of applicants and witnesses. 89 Those making the 
investigations could only find in the court, and were only furnished by 
its officers with 17,915 applications. 90 

Adam Gillespie, a clerk in this court, again appeared before the com¬ 
mittee on the 1st of February, more than a month after Westlake testi¬ 
fied, and contradicts his own former testimony by swearing that “within 
the last few days” he “ made a count of the entire number of applications 91 
in the superior court,” and the result was “that the whole number of 
applications from 1st to 23 d October, inclusive, was 18,432.” 

Although he says he “can safely swear that none have been destroyed 
or abstracted,” yet, as various clerks and others had access to the office 
the evidence shows that there were abundant opportunities to destroy or 
abstract the papers. And Westlake who swore to the number in Decem¬ 
ber, though yet a clerk in the office, is not produced as a witness to 
explain the alleged error in his evidence, nor is any reason assigned why 

hours naturalizing parties. I bauded the papers to Pettit about 12 o’clock, and about 6 or 7 in the evening I 
x'eceived the certificates. The supreme court did not commence to naturalize until 7 o’clock in the evening. 

I was in the supreme court all that day hearing a trial. 

4661. Q. Do you know of any others that were engaged in the same businesss ?—A. Yes, sir; one was 
Patrick McCaffrey; another was John Gallagher; he is in the street department, I believe; a man at 189 
King street; and also John Verway, conductor on a Ninth avenue railroad car; he resides at 439 West Thirty- 
sixth street. I know William Thurbin, who is also engaged in that business; he is a conductor on the Bleeker 
street line, and resides somewhere in the 19th ward. There is also John Moran, who resides in the 21st ward. 
Also Chauncey Gray, who resides at the Putnam County House, corner of Twenty-sixth street and Fourth 
avenue. 

4662. Q. Do you know John or Patrick Goff?—A. I do not. I know a great many by sight but do not 
know their names. 

Q. Do you know where Patrick McCaffrey is ?—A. I saw him last Monday. 

4663. Q. Do you know Henry Illume?—A. I know a great many by sight who are engaged in this business, 
but do not know them by name. 

4664. A. Do you know anything of the mode in which these men conducted their business?—A. They did 
it just the same as I did. Some of them were at Rosenberg’s place ; Rosenberg had three Jews who swore 
in papers for him. At the office of the Tammany committee, No. 1 Centre street, there was a clerk there 
from each ward. Applicants would come to these men to get their papers put through, and if they had no 
witnesses the clerks would go witness for them. In the sheriff's office the different wards had parties there 
who would go. Patrick McCaffrey was most of the time in the old sheriff’s office. John Gallagher also 
had a desk there. 

4767. Q. To what extent did McCaffrey carry on this business?—A. He carried it on to a very heavy extent. 

4768. Q. To what extent did John Gallagher ?—A. Very largely. Gallagher told me that he was in the 
street department. That is the only way that I know it. 

^Evidence, 2023. ' 

87 Evidence, 7207—and swore “it is an actual count”—3457. 

88 Evidence, 7207, 8451. 

^Evidence, 6851, page 700, 7704, 7712-20, 7733, 7740, 7743-44. 

^Evidence, 7670 ; see table in note to this report, part 1, chapter 1, under head of “minor 
applications .” 7732, 7741, 7643. 

91 Evidence, 8223. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


31 


he does not appear before the committee. These contradictory state¬ 
ments are not calculated to inspire confidence in the accuracy of these 
witnesses, and if any have been reckless or careless in their evidence 
they might be equally so in the mode of preserving the papers. 

Some of the same clerks aided in making the count on both occasions. 92 
To account for the discrepancy, it is said that in the first estimate they 
counted one bundle of 100 and estimated the residue in bundles of the 
same size as nearly as possible. 93 But this cannot satisfactorily account 
for the discrepancy. 

A comparison of the number reported for certain days by Westlake and 
the number last certified to as found in the office shows this, as may be 
seen from the following: 

Gillespie’s Westlake’s evidence, Discrepancy in 

Report, Feb. 1. December 28. each day. 


October 6. 1,272 1,721 449 

Octobers. 1,133 1,842 709 

October 9. 877 1,760 883 

October 13. 1,384 1,868 484 

October 15. 934 1,420 486 

October 16. 581 1,112 531 


And the applications now conceded to be on file were in part withheld 
from these investigations; for October 9, only 601 of the 877 admitted, 
and of the 1760 originally sworn to, have been presented for inspection. 94 


THE NUMBER OF FRAUDULENT CERTIFICATES." 8 

In view of all the evidence it is not too much to say no reliance can be 
placed on the records and files of these courts to declare the actual 
number of certificates of naturalization granted. The actual number of 
illegal , fraudulent and fictitious naturalizations never can be known, but 
including those sent from New York city over the State to persons 
never appearing in court, and it is probably safe to say that fraudulent 
certificates were issued from these two courts alone as follows: 

Fraudulent minor applications as shown above. 6, 656 

Highest number of prior naturalizations since 1855. 16, 493 

Number as reported in 1868. 44., 112 


Difference estimated fraudulent. 24, 619 

Of the 27,068 missing blank certificates in the supreme 
court it would doubtless be safe to assume on the evi¬ 
dence that there have been used. 27, 068 

In the counties of Ulster, Monroe, Westchester, Rens¬ 
selaer, Putnam, Green, and Orange, estimating what 

is probable from what is proved . 5, 000 

As the evidence shows a wide-spread conspiracy it is safe 

to estimate for other portions of the State. 5, 000 


Or a total of not less , and probably more , than. 68, 343 


Of the 60 counties in the St ate of New York 14 are democratic. 9 6 

92 Evidence, 8417, 8456. ^Evidence, 8416. 94 Evidence, page 700. 

95 Some estimate might be made by ascertaining the proportion of those proved fraudulent 
The 21st district, 17th ward, may serve as a specimen. There about one-fifth of the certificates 
presented proved to be fraudulent. Of course, there were really many more which escaped 
challenge, or otherwise avoided detection. The whole number of certificates reported is 
41,112. One-fifth of this is 8,222. And the undetected and otherwise illegal would vastly 
exceed this.—Evidence, 369. 

^Evidence, p. 354. 






















32 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


There is no evidence of the issuing of a fraudulent naturalization cer¬ 
tificate by any republican court or officer, but New York city had made 
ample preparations to supply the democratic party abundantly even 
in the republican counties. 

CHAPTER III. 

ILLEGALITY OF NATURALIZATION PROCEEDINGS IN NEW YORK CITY. 

The acts of Congress authorize the naturalization, among others, of 
three classes of aliens : 

1. Those residing five years in the United States, having declared in 
court, at least two years prior to naturalization, the intention to become 
citizens. 

2. Those having resided in the United States three years next pre¬ 
ceding the age of twenty-one years, and five years in all, in which cases 
no previous declaration is required. These are called u minor applica¬ 
tions.” 

3. Those of the age of twenty-one years, honorably discharged from- 
the army, on proof of one year’s residence, and without any previous 
declaration of intention. 

In all cases the court must be “satisfied” of the facts and that the 
applicant has during his residence behaved as a man of good moral 
character, attached to the principles of the Constitution, and well-dis- 
posed to the good order and happiness of the same, but “the oath of the 
applicant shall in no case be allowed to prove his residence.” (Act of 
Congress of April 14, 1802. 2 Stat., 153.) 

In New York city, during 1808, naturalizations were effected in the 
supreme court, the superior court, and the common pleas. 

The supreme court of New York professed to adopt the following 
practice: 

Por the naturalization of those having previously declared in court 
the intention to become citizens, a blank form 97 printed sheet is used, 
containing— 


97 It is as follows : 


SUPREME Court, City and County of New York: 

In the matter of the application of-, to be admitted a citizen of the United States of America. 

STATE OF New York, City and County of New York, ss ; 

-, being duly sworn, says that he resides at -, and that he is well acquainted with the 

above-named applicant, and that the said applicant has resided within the United States for the continued 
term of five years, at least, next preceding the present time, and within the State of New York one year, at 
least, immediately preceding this application, and that during that time he has behaved as a man of good 
moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the 
good order and happiness of the same. 


\ 


Sworn in open court this-day of-, 186-. 

State of New York, City and County of New York, 68: 


, Clerk. 


I.-, residing at-, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United 

States, and that I do absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure'all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign 

prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, and particularly to the .-, of whom I wms before a 

subject. 


Sworn in open court this-day of-, 186-. 


•, Clerk. 


At a special term of the supreme court, held at the City Hall of the city of New York, on the_day of 

-, 186-. J 

Present, Hon.-, justice. 

In the matter of the application of the within-named applicant to be admitted a citizen of the United States 

of America. 

1 he said applicant appearing personally in court, producing the evidence required by the acts of Congress 
and having made such declaration and renunciation, and having taken such oaths as are by the said acts 
required, it is ordered by the said court that the said applicant be admitted to be a citizen of the United States 
of America. 

Enter : _ _ 


























ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK 


9 9 
6 J 


1. Aii affidavit of a witness to prove tlie residence and character of 
the applicant. 

2. An affidavit of the applicant to support the Constitution and 
renounce all foreign allegiance, commonly called the “oath of allegiance.” 

3. The order of the court of admission to citizenship, or, as it is called 
in Xew York, the flat. 

On production of evidence of the previous declaration in some court 
of intention to become a citizen, and proof under these forms, the judge 
signs his initials to the order of admission, the oath of allegiance is 
administered, and the clerk furnishes a final certificate of naturalization 
to the applicant. 

For u minor applications” there is used 97 an affidavit of the applicant, 
as to his residence, arrival in the United States, under 18 years of age, 
&c.; another of his intention for three years to become a citizen ; another 
of a witness as to the residence of the applicant; then the oath of allegi¬ 
ance and the order of admission of the court. 

In the supreme court there were, in 1868, 10,093 naturalizations, of 
Vhich 9,711 purport to be minor applications, leaving only 382 of all 
other classes! Minor applications require no evidence of a previous 
declaration of intention. 

For discharged soldiers there is used a petition 98 and affidavit of the 
soldier, affidavit of witness, oath of allegiance, and order of the court. 


97 The forms are as follows : 

Supreme Court, City and County of New York : 

la the matter of the application of-, to be admitted a citizen of the United States of America. 

STATE OF NEW YORK, City and County of New York, ss: 

-, the above-named applicant, being duly sworn, says that he resides at -; that he has 

arrived at the age of 18 years ; that he has resided in the United States three years next preceding his arrival 
at that age, and has continued to reside therein to the present time; that he has resided five years within the 
United States, including the three years of his minority, and one year, at least, immediately preceding this 
application, within the State of New York, and that for three years preceding this application it has been, 
bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States. 

Sworn in open court this-day of-, 186-. 

-, Clerk. 

State OF New York, City and County of New York, ss: 

-, being duly sworn, says that he resides at -, and that he is well acquainted with the 

above-named applicant, and that the said applicant has resided in the United States for three years next pre¬ 
ceding his arrival at the age of 21 years; that he has contiuned to reside therein to the present time ; that he 
has resided five years within the United States, including the three years of his minority, and in the State of 
New York one year, at least, immediately preceding this application, and that during that time he has 
behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, 
and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same ; and deponent verily believes that for three 
years next preceding this application it has been, bona fide, the intention of the said applicant to become a 
citizen of the United States. 

Sworn to in open court this-day of —.—, 186-. 

-, Clerk. 

STATE OF New York, City and County of New York, ss: 

_ , the above-named applicant, do declare on oa^h that it is, bona fide, ray intention, and has 

been for three years next preceding this application, to become a citizen of the United States, and to 
renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whatever, 
particularly to the Queen of the United Kingdom of G-reat Britain and Ireland, of whom I am now a subject. 

Sworn to in open court this-day of -, 186-. 

-, Clerk. 

[Then follow the form of oath of allegiance, order of the judge, as in preceding form.] 

98 They are as follows: 

Supreme Court, City and County of New York: 

In the matter of-, on his petition to become a citizen of the United States. 

To the Supreme Court of the State of New York: 

The petition of_, residing at-, respectfully shows: That he is of the age of 21 years and 

upwards, and has resided within the United States for the continued term of one year next preceding the 

present time ; that your petitioner enlisted in the army of the United States, in the- regiment of New 

York volunteers, on the-day of-, 186—, at -, in the State of New York, and was honorablv 

discharged therefrom on the - day of-, 186-. Your petitioner, therefore, asks to be admitted to 

H. Kep. Com. 31—■—3 
































34 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK 


In the supreme court all the naturalizations were before Judge George 
G. Barnard," whose general practice professed to be to administer an 
oath 100 to the applicants and witnesses in the words of the printed 
blank forms of affidavits, generally without any further examination, 
without any oath to “testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth,” or “to true answer make to such questions as may be put.” 

become a citizen of the United States, pursuant to section 21 of the act of Congress passed July 17, 1862, 
entitled “ An act to define the pay and emoluments of certain officers of the army, and tor other purposes. 


State of New York, City and County of New York , ss : 

__, the within-named petitioner, being duly sworn, says that the matters contained in the fore¬ 
going petition are true. 

Sworn in open court, this-day of-, 186-. 

-, Clerk. 

STATE OF NEW York, City and County of New York, ss: 

--j being duly sworn, says that he resides at -, and that he is well acquainted with the 

above-named petitioner, and that the said petitioner has resided within the United States for the continued 
term of one year, next preceding the present time, and within the State of New York one year, at 
least, immediately preceding this application; and that during that time he has behaved as a man ot 
good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed 
to the good order and happiness of the same ; and that he knows the said applicant to be the identical person 
mentioned and described in the foregoing petition, and in the certificate of discharge from the service of the 
United States army, now produced to the court. 

Sworn in open court this-day of -,„186-. 

-, Clerk. 

[Then follows a form of oath of allegiance, as in the foregoing, and order of the judge, as 
follows: ] 

At a special term of the supreme court, held at the City Hall of the city of New York, on the-day 

of-, 186—. 

Present, Hon.-, justice.] 

In the matter of the application of the within-named applicant to be admitted a citizen of the United States 

of America. 

The said applicant appearing personally in court, and producing his certificate of discharge from the service 
of the United States army, and the evidence required by the acts of Congress, and having made such declara¬ 
tion and renunciation, and having taken such oaths as are by the said acts required, it is ordered by the said 
court that the said applicant be admitted to be a citizen of the United States of America. 

Enter: 

For forms in naturalization cases, see Evan’s edition of Harris’s Entries, Story’s Pleadings. 

99 See Evidence, 1696. 

100 Isaac Heyman, a clerk in that court, testifies that the judge “ swore them in by read¬ 
ing to each of them the oath that is appended to the application. After the principal and 
witness were both sworn he would sign orders for the application so granted.” (2852.) See 
Evidence, 1678. 

Charles E. Loew, the clerk of the court, testifies : 

A. Well, the way it was done was this: First, the applications of the various parties were handed in by the 
officer of the court. The parties were sitting outside, just as if they were outside that railing, and the judge 
was sitting on the bench, and the applications were handed in by the officer. The court then called off the 
name of the applicant; sometimes Judge Barnard called it oft’, and sometimes I called it when I was there. 
The party answered to the name, and came inside the railing. Then the witness was called, and he came 
inside. The judge would call probably eight or ten in that way, and then the oath was put to them. 

1542. Q. The judge, or you, %vould call the applicant, and then the witness?—A. Yes, sir. 

1543. Q. Was that the uniform mode of doiug in each particular case?—A. That was the uniform mode of 
doing. 

1544. Q. And in that way you would go through with a certain number?—A. Yes; with eight or ten at a 
time. That is the way it was done. When they came inside the railing, the judge would either swear them 
or direct me to swear them. 

1545. Q. How did you administer the oath to so many?—A. I administer it—that “ you and each of you 
(whose names have been called) do severally and solemnly swear.” That is when the applicants were all 
alike—of one class. The papers were separated and each class put by itself, and then the usual oath pre¬ 
scribed by the law was administered. 

1546. Q. How did you swear the witness?—A. “You, John Doe, (or whatever the name was) and you 

-, being witnesses for the several parties who have just been sworn, do severally solemnly swear that 

you have been acquainted with the parties,” &c., complying with the requirements of the law. 

1547. Q. Do you mean to say that you administered the oath to the witnesses separately?—A. No, sir; I 
do not. 

1551. Q. How were the applicants sworn?—A. As I have described—eight or ten at a time. 

1552. Q. Either by the court or by you, in open court ?—A. Yes, sir ; I don’t say that was always the case, 
but when I was there I would, by his direction, administer the oath occasionally. 

1553. Q. You would repeat the oath but once for the eight or ten ?—A. Yes, sir; calling the names as they 
came up and putting the oath to them, “ You do severally and solemnly swear,” &c. 

M. R. Leverson, a member of the bar, testifies: 

The judge then administered the oath in words which I took down at the time : “ You, the several appli¬ 
cants, swear that you are 2L years of age; that you arrived in this country three years before attaining that 
age, and have resided five years in the United States, and for the last year in the State of New York.” He 
swore them in a batch to that form. He would then say : “And you, the several witnesses, swear that the 
contents of your severa affidavits are true.” 

And see Evidence. 3824, 3852, 3859, 1696. 
















ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


35 

In the superior court of New York city substantially the same blank 
forms were used, except that there was no printed or other fiat or order 
of the judge. Instead of this the judge indicated his order simply by 
writing his intials, u J. H. McC.” across the face or along the margin of 
the application. 101 

In this court most of the naturalizations were before Judge John 
H. McCunn, from whose testimony it appears he did not swear any 
witness or applicant u to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, 7 ’nor even to “make true answers to such questions as 
should be put,” but lie professed to swear the applicants and witnesses 
in these words, “that these affidavits you have subscribed are true.” 102 
After this, sometimes, though rarely, questions were asked as to age, 
residence, and moral character, but never under oath , unless, indeed, the 
swearing to the truth of their affidavits could be so considered. 

In the court of common pleas each applicant Avas naturalized separately, 
an oath was administered to each witness to testify the truth touching 
the questions put to him in the matter of the application, a proper oral 
examination of witnesses was had and, the judges and clerk seem to have 
discharged their duties with an integrity of purpose and regard for the 
law, 103 Avhich unfortunately did not prevail in the other courts. 

This may account for the fact that the common pleas, which in pre¬ 
vious years had done most of the naturalization business, 104 did but very 
little in 18G8, while the naturalizations in the superior and supreme 
courts were numerous, though the latter court naturalized none in pre¬ 
vious years. 

The distinction between an oath and an affidavit is well understood. 105 
An oath means an oath in the common law form. 106 

The 1 aw does not authorize the court to receive affidavits. 107 In order- 

101 See Evidence, 3614 ; Meek’s evidence, No. 3787. 

102 Here is Judge McCunn’s own testimony: 

3632. Q. In what form did you swear the parties?—A. To my invariable question, “Have you read the 
affidavit?” the answer would be “Yes, sir.” “Do you understand the contents thereof ?” “Yes, sir.” Then, 
if the witness swore with uplifted hands, I would administer this oath: “ You do solemnly swear, in the pres¬ 
ence of the ever-living God, that these affidavits you have subscribed are true;” or. if the witness swore on 
the book, “You solemnly swear that the affidavits you have subscribed are true?” That was the end of 
the formula, and then the cross-examination would begin: “How long have you known this man in this 
country?” “So many years." “Do you know that he came here under the age of 18?” Well, if a man 
hesitated for a moment, I would tear up the papers and tell him to pass along; but if the answer was, “ I have 
known him from his boyhood,” or “from when he was 16 years old in this country,” I would then ask, “Do 
you know him to be a man of good moral character, and attached to the Constitution of the United States of 
America?” If he said “ Yes,” I would then turn to the applicant himself and ask him, “How long have you 
been in this country?” and if I doubted the man from his answer, I would ask him what ship te came over 
in, and from which port, for I have knowledge of almost all the steamships and packets, and if I found that 
the man prevaricated, then I would destroy the application. 

3633. Q. Suppose it was not the application of a minor, but of an adult, what would be the process of nat¬ 
uralization?—A. He has his first certificate then, and it is only a question whether he has been in this country 
all the time since ; or if he has been abroad, whether it was with the intention of residing abroad. The appli¬ 
cant and his witness, in such a case, would be sworn inthe same way that I have already stated. I would ask, 
then : “Have you read the affidavits?” and if they said they had not, I would go on and read the affidavits, 
if they said “ Yes,” I would swear them to the truth of the affidavits. After that I would ask the witness, 
“ How long have you known this man in this country ?” and “ Is he a man of good moral character ?” &c. 
That was all. 

Edwin R. Kent, clerk in equity to the supreme court, testifies: 

3957. Q. Were one-tenth of the witnesses examined before they were sworn ?^A. O, yes, sir. There may 
have been one half of them examined, or there may have been more, or there may have been less. 

3958. Q. After the examination without being sworn, the oath was administered to them in the form in the 
printed blanks?—A. Yes, sir. 

3973. Q. Were they sworn as soon as they came inside the railing?—-A. No, sir; as a general thing the judge 
asked them some questions before the oath was administered.—Evidence, 963, 1366, 1756, 3957, 3973. 

103 I960, 7227. 104 1952. See tables. 

105 7 Hill, N. Y. Rep. 137. Tbe act of March 3, 1857, (11 Stat. 250,) declares it perjury to 
swear falsely “in all cases where any oath, affirmation, or affidavit shall be made or taken 
before any registrar or receiver of any local land office.” 

i°6 Evidence of Judge Emmet, 5090. 2 Bouvier Die., title “Oath.” 

107 In 7 Hill, N. Y. Rep. 137, it was said, in the matter of an application for naturalization, 
by Judge Dean, a prominent democrat, that “the act of April 14, 1802,” declares that the 
court ‘ shall be satisfied ” of the residence of the applicant for the proper period ; and that 



36 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


ing certificates of naturalization on sucli proof alone tlie courts pro¬ 
ceeded illegally. 

When any evidence at all was taken in the superior and supreme courts 
the former only professed to use affidavits as evidence, and the latter 
did substantially or really the same thing. 

Only one witness was required 108 by these courts. 

The act of April 14, 1802, provides that any alien u may be admitted 
to become a citizen” on making the proper declaration in court and 
taking the proper oath of allegiance , u which proceedings shall be recorded 
by the clerk of the court.” The act of the court admitting to citizenship 
is a u proceeding ” to be recorded. 

In the courts of New York no record was made other than the files of 
the applications, affidavits, and order u of naturalization,” signed by the 
initials of the judge. If this should be deemed a record still as to the 
superior court, the forms used do not contain any such order. 109 

“ it shall further appear to their satisfaction that during- that time he has behaved as a man 
of good moral character,” &c. Then follows a provision “that the oath of the applicant 
shall in no case be allowed to prove his residence.” * * From this it is to be inferred that 

the residence is to he proved * by the oath of some one other than the applicant. * * 

Undoubtedly the legislature may make ex parte affidavits competent evidence in any case, 
as they have done in various instances, by express enactment. But this only proves that 
without such enactments affidavits are inadmissible and can never be received. * * I 

entertain no doubt, therefore, that affidavits cannot be legally received in these cases.” 

See Brown vs. Hinchman, 9 John’s, R. 75. Lenox vs. the United Ins. Co., 3 John’s Cases, 
224. Ex parte Tucker, 1 Cranch, 89. (See evidence of Judge Emmet, 5090.) 

In People vs. Sweetman, 3 Parker’s Criminal Cases, (New York,) as late as 1857, Pratt, 
J., decided in relation to naturalizations that, “the laws of Congress require the application 
to be made to the court, and the proof of live years’ previous residence must be taken in 
open court. It must also be common law evidence taken by the oral examination of the icit - 
nesses. Previously prepared affidavits are not competent." 7 Hill, 137; 18 Barbour, 444. * * 

“ Affidavits found on file were clearly not competent to prove the pendency of such proceed¬ 
ings, and, especially, as there is no law requiring the examination to be taken in writing and 
filed.” This was an indictment for perjury, in which it was held, that there could be no 
conviction, because the alleged perjury was in an affidavit used on an application for natur¬ 
alization. And see Evidence, 2,006. 

[The New York courts, in 1868, could scarcely fail to know of this decision.] 

108 See Evidence, 1700. By the ‘ ‘act relative to evidence in cases of naturalization, ” approved 
March 22, 1816, and May .24, 1824, it is provided: “And the residence of the applicant 
Within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for at least five years imme¬ 
diately preceding the time of such application shall be proved by the oath or affirmation of 
citizens of the United States, which citizens shall be named in the record as witnesses. And 
such continued residence within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, 
when satisfactorily proved, and the place or places where the applicant has resided for at 
least five years, as aforesaid, shall be stated and set forth, together with the names of such 
citizens in the record of the court admitting the applicant; otherwise the same shall not 
entitle him to be considered and deemed a citizen of the United States.” (3 Stat., 259; 4 
Stat., 310.) 

This is inserted as in force in Brightly’s Digest, 35, (edition of 1858,) and in Paschal’s 
Annotated Digest. This and the act of the 26th of May, 1828, (4 Stat., 310,) are referred to 
as in force, and as of general application in the case in 7 Hill’s Rep. 140, decided in 1845; 
and the court say : 

By these acts there must be witnesses; one alone is not enough; and they must be citizens, not aliens as 
they might have been under the act of 1802. 

The act of 1816 having a title “relative to evidence in cases of naturalization,” is there 
regarded as amendatory of the act of 1802, which left the mode of proof doubtful. The rules 
of construction do not permit courts to limit the application of statutes apparently general in 
their character, (Brightly’s Digest, 35, United States vs. Randolph, Pittsburg Legal Journal 
4th June, 1853.) 

The act of Congress of March 13, 1813, proceeded upon the idea that the act of the court 
admitting aliens to citizenship should be recorded. It requires each of a certain class of per¬ 
sons to procure “a certified copy of the act by which he shall have been naturalized.” (Sec. • 
2, vol. 2, Stat. at Large.) Though this section is repealed, it was a legislative construction 
of the act of 1802. 

109 See Evidence, 3475, 924, page 79 and evidence of Meeks. A list or index of names and 

residences of applicants and witnesses is made up in a book with the date of naturalization._ 

Evidence, 1668, 1672, 1734. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


37 


As affidavits are unauthorized, no person guilty of false swearing could 
be convicted of perjury, 110 and thus immunity from all penalt ies has been 
given to all who made them. 

If certificates of naturalization granted on illegal affidavits shall be 
deemed valid, 111 it only adds to the gross character of the violations of law 
by the judges who participated in them. 

And if the power to revoke or annul certificates of naturalization does 
not exist, 112 there can be no adequate remedy for these violations of judi¬ 
cial duty and of law; or if a legal remedy in the courts could exist, it 
would be extremely difficult, if not impracticable, to apply it, and 
especially in these courts. 

But as to the naturalizations in the superior court it may well be 
doubted whether they are not all void, because there is no paper on file 
nor other record showing any order of the court 113 directing any applicant 
to u be admitted to become a citizen ,” for which, and a “record” thereof, 
the act of 1802 provides, and as to which there can be no proof by parol, 
when no record ever existed. 114 

And this doubt may well exist even independently of the acts ot 
March 22, 1816, and May 24,1828, which declare, as to the cases therein 
provided for, that if a record is not made containing the names of citi¬ 
zens as witnesses, &c., the record shall not entitle the applicant u to be 
considered and deemed a citizen.” 


110 The act of March 3, 1857, makes it perjury to swear falsely before any register or receiver 
of a local laud office “ in all cases where any oath, affirmation or affidavit shall be made” which 
the law requires, &c. ; 11 Stat., 251. The general perjury statute only applies when “an oath 
or affirmation shall be required under any law of the United States.” (Act March 3, 1825, 
sec. 12, 4 Stat., 118.) 

111 The judgment of the court is conclusive that all legal prerequisites were complied with ; 
l Brightly’s Dig. 34, citing Stark vs. Chesapeake Ins. Co., 7 Cranch, 420. Spratt »s. Spratt, 4 
Peters, 406. Ritchie vs. Putnam, 13 Wendell, 524. McCarthy vs. Marsh, 1 Selden, 263, 278. 
Campbell vs. Gordon, 6 Cranch, 176. (See evidence of Judge Emmet, 5090.) 

112 The Attorney General of the United States, on the 9th February, 1844, gave an opinion 
as to the Louisiana certificates of naturalization, in which he said that a certificate of naturali¬ 
zation “is the judgment of a court purporting absolute verity, and fully operative, unless 
impeached for fraud." (Vol. 9 Senate Docs., 2d session 28th Congress, Doc. 173, p. 156.) 

Judge McCunn testified as follows: 

3664. Q. Has not the court power to set aside certificates of naturalization procured by fraud?—A. Yes, 
I have done it. 

3665. Q. Cannot you make an order annulling a certificate of naturalization without having possession of 
the certificate?—A. I suppose we can ; we can grant an order declaring that the persons naturalized shall not 
vote; but they go to the registry aud are registered and vote, and that is an end of the story. 

A certificate of naturalization irregularly obtained may be set aside. (Richards vs. 
McDaniel, 2 Nott &. McCord, 351, note to 1 Brightly’s Dig. 34 ; 11 St. Tr. 230,262: 1 Ves. 
159; Andr. 393.) 

See Evidence, 6867. 

113 Under the act of January 29, 1795, (1 Stat. 414,) similar in its provisions to the act of 1802, 
it was held that “the oath (of allegiance, &c.,) when taken confers upon him (the applicant 
for naturalization) the rights of a citizen, and amounts to a judgment of the court for his 
admission to those rights. It is not necessary that there should be an order ot the court 
admitting him to become a citizen.” (Campbell vs. Gordon, 6 Cranch, 176.) 

But in Spratt vs. Spratt, 4 Peters, 406, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States 
in 1830, it is said : “ The various acts upon the subject submit the decision on the right or 
aliens to admission as citizens to courts of record. They are to receive testimony, to com¬ 
pare it with the law, and to judge on both law and fact. This judgment is ENTERED ON 
record as the judgment of the court. It seems to us, if it be in legal form , to close all iuquiry; 
and like every other judgment, to be complete evidence of its own validity.” 

1)4 Naturalization cannot be proved by parol. 1 Brightly’s Digest, 34, note (a) citing Slade 
vs. Minor, 2 Cranch, C. C. R. 139. Price vs. Barber, 13 Leg. Int. 140. (See Campbell vs. 
Gordon, 6 Cranch, 176.) 



38 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


The determination of the court on an application for naturalization 
u is the judgment of a court. ’ 115 ’ 

The act of 1802 requires that “ the court admitting such alien ” “ to 
become a citizen” “ shall be satisfied” of certain facts. In 1854 Judge 
Dean, of the supreme court of New York, said u that, as the court before 
admitting him (the applicant for naturalization) is to be satisfied of cer¬ 
tain facts, it follows that the powers conferred upon the court are judi¬ 
cial and not ministerial or clerical.” (18 Barbour, Sup. Ct. B., 446.) 

It cannot properly be said t hat the certificate of naturalization furnished 
to the applicant is the record and all the record required by the law. 

No act of Congress requires any certificate to be issued, though the 
13th section of the act of March 3,1813, makes it penal to forge or alter 
them. Where a record exists, the fact of what the court did, may, on gen¬ 
eral principles, be certified. 

This is what a certificate of naturalization does. 116 It is not a record 
of the court, because it is not preserved on its files or record. 

The 4th section of the registry law of New York, of May 13, 1S65, 
requires the production of a certificate of naturalization, in certain cases, 
to enable naturalized citizens to register and vote. 

Unless the order of the court exercising judicial powers can rest in parol, 
and the act of Congress requiring the “proceedings to be recorded”— 
that is, the evidence of them to be written in a book, or preserved among 
the rolls or files of the court—can be disregarded, there is no valid evi¬ 
dence of any order in the superior court, in 1868, u admitting any alien 
to be a citizen f and if no evidence exists there of an order, no certificate 
can be given of a fact not so appearing of record. 

CHAPTEB IV. 

REPEATING AND FRAUDULENT CANVASSING. 

I.— Repeating. 

In New York city there are 22 wards, divided into 340 election districts. 
The registry law of the State of May 13, 1865, as amended April 25, 
1866, provides for four inspectors of registry and election in each dis¬ 
trict, who, aided by two poll-clerks, sit one day three weeks before the 
election, or two days if the number of voters exceed 400 in the district, 
and again on Friday and Saturday before the election, to register the 
names and residences of voters appearing for that purpose, and none 
can lawfully vote unless so registered. These inspectors at the election 
receive the ballots from voters and deposit them in proper ballot-boxes. 

115 Opinion of Attorney General United States, February 9, 1844, Senate Doc. ]73, p. 156, 
vol. 9, 2d sess. ‘28th Cong.; Stark vs. Chesapeake, Ins. Co., 7 Cranch, 420; Spratt vs. Spratt, 
4 Peters, 406; Ritchie us. Putnam, 13 Wend., 524; McCarthy us. Marsh, 1 Seld. 263,278; 
Campbell us. Gordon, 6 Cranch, 176; it is so far a judgment that, if irregularly obtained, 
it may be set aside. Richard us. McDaEniel, 2 Nott & McCord, 361. 

116 The form used in the supreme court is as follows: 

United States of America, State of New York, 

City and County of New York, ss: 

Be it remembered, that on the 19th day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 
sixty-eight, Andrew B. Seigner appeared in the superior court of the city of New York, (the said court being 
a court of record, having common law jurisdiction, and a clerk and seal,) and applied to the said court to be 
admitted to become a citizen of the United States of America, pursuant to the provisions of the several acts of 
the Congress of the United States of America for that purpose made and provided. And the said applicant 
having thereupon produced to the court such evidence, made such declaration and renunciation, and taken 
such oaths as are by the said acts required, thereupon it was ordered by the said court that the said applicant 
be admitted, and he was accordingly admitted by the said court, to be a citizen of the United States of America. 

In testimony whereof, the seal of the said court is hereunto affixed, this 19th day of October, one thousand 
[Seal.] eight hundred and sixty-eight, and in the 93d year of our independence. 

By the court: 


JAMES M. SWEENY, Clerk. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


39 


The names and residence of voters are recorded by the poll-clerks on 
poll-lists, and when the polls are closed the ballot-boxes are delivered 
over to two canvassers, who canvass or count the ballots, which should 
by law tally in number with the names recorded on the poll-lists. The 
result of the canvass is announced and certified by the canvassers and 
their returns finally passed upon by the board of supervisors sitting as 
a county board of canvassers. Persons claiming the right to be regis¬ 
tered and to vote may be challenged, and their right so to do is decided 
by a majority of the inspectors. 

If the committee had devoted the whole time from their appointment 
to the close of this Congress it would not have been possible to ascertain 
or to take testimony to prove the number of persons who voted more than 
onee in each of these 340 districts, in all of which there were cast at the 
presidential election in November, 1868, 156,060 votes, a number nearly 
as great as all the votes cast in six of the States of the Union, and larger 
than the vote of any one of twenty-one of the States cast at the same 
election. All that could be done was to prove, as the evidence does, that 
an organized system was perfected and carried into effect, by members 
of the democratic party, to register many thousands of names, fictitious 
or assumed, and then to vote on them by hundreds of persons voting 
from two to forty times each for the democratic candidates. 

u Headquarters” 117 were established in different localities of the city, 
books made 118 with duplicate lists of names, opposite to each of which 
were placed a number and street as a residence. 


117 See evidence to foot-note ( U9 ) this chapter, and table showing prominent places from which 

illegal registration and voting was carried on. . 

118 Robert Murray, (United States marshal:) 

A. Some five days before the election a man called at my office and stated to me that with a little help he 
could get books of these repeaters. 

This thing is regularly systematized here. 

They have got a book made the form of a check-book, a line is drawn through each page, leaving what is 
supposed to be a margin. There is a place for the date, for the name and l’esidence that the repeater takes, 
and the election district in which he is going to register. The same thing is put down on the margin. The 
captain of the division (for they have got the city divided into sections) cuts oft the memorandum and gives it 
to one of these repeaters registered, and when the election day comes he cuts off the corresponding memo¬ 
randum in the margiu, and the fellow goes and votes upon it. It became fully developed and we arrested the 
parties and got the books. 

56. Q. How many times do these repeaters vote, each ?—A. Twenty, ^or 30, or 40 times each. 

George W. Walling, inspector metropolitan police. 

A. On the Friday night previous to the election, the night of the 30th of October, Superintendent Kennedy 
sent for me to meet him at the Fifth Avenue Hotel. I met him there, and he introduced me to a young man, 
whose name I do not know, and told me that this young man knew something about parties who were regis¬ 
tering for the purpose of “ repeating.” I talked with him and directed him to meet me the next morning at 
8 o’clock—Saturday, the 31st of October. I left him then, and went to the station-house to get six men from 
Captain Campbell, captain of the 18th precinct, in citizens’ dress. I met the young man the next morning, and 
he then stated to me that a man by the name of William Varley, alias Reddy, the blacksmith, had charge of a 
company of “repeaters,” who had been registering from Catharine street, and he believed they were going 
the next day to 29 East Broadway to register. I went near that vicinity, and from time to time I sent these 
officers that were now with me to watch No. 29 East Broadway. They came back and reported several 
times that they saw no one, until about dinner time, between 12 and 1 o'clock, when we separated, and I 
directed them to meet me again after dinner. We got back probably near 2 o’clock. I sent them around 
again, and they came back and reported that they had seen several men come out from 29 East Broadway, 
aud go to a place of registry, and go into a place of registry. Of course, the officers did not follow them in, for 
they might have suspected something. They followed the men ; I saw them, after coming out of the registry, 
go back to 29 East Broadway again, and then leave 29 East Broadway and go to another district, and go in 
there, and then come back again. 

3676. Q. What was the first district they went to ?—A. I think it was the 1st district of the 7th ward. The 
oflftcers came back and reported to me, “ It is all right; they are now registering.” We then separated. Some 
went up East Broadway, and some down. One of the officers told me that he had seen a man standing on the 
stoop of the house, who appeared to be on the look-out. Well, we rushed into the house, No. 29 East Broad¬ 
way, and as we rushed in the man who was standing at the step rushed in also. There were seven persons 
there beside him; he made the eighth. I directed the officers to seize all the books. We seized a book that 
was on a table, at which a young man was sitting, and we took the eight persons whom we found there, with 
the book, to the police headquarters. The book is here, and I now produce it. I think it is marked “1st, 3d, 
and 6th districts of the 7th ward.” 

We took the men to police headquarters. I wished to find Reddy, the blacksmith, w! om I knew well, and 
wanted to go to his place to arrest him, or to look for any books that I might find there. As I was going out 
I met Counsellor Howe, and he requested me to take the prisoners before the police court. It was near 4 
o’clock and the court had not closed. I said there was another party I wished to get, and I immediately left 



40 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK 


On the 30th and 31st of October, when only two days intervened 
until the day of the election, gangs 119 or bodies of men hired for the pur- 


the building and went down to Reddy the blacksmith’s place. I did not find him, but I searched his place 
and at his place I got the book and the papers which I now produce. 

The book which I have produced, and which I got at Reddy the blacksmith’s, is similar in size and binding 
to the tirst book which I produced, and has also a number of leaves torn out of it from the front part ot the 
book. The paper is different from that of the other book, in this, that the other book is white paper, ledger 
form, with top ruling and ruling at the sides, while this is blue paper with only cross-ruling. The first two 
leaves which are left in this book not torn out have names written on them and numbers of streets, and slips 
have been cut out so that the first leaf is nearly all cut away. Out of the second leaf two slips have been cut. 
The next page has fifteen names with numbers of streets on it, headed “Sixth Ward, Ninth District.” Then 
after a few pages there is another page with names and numbers of streets on it, with part of the top and bottom 
of the leaf cut off. Then follows a pege nearly all cut out. In the book are seventeen slips of white paper 
with marginal endings, similar to the first book. Some of the slips have names only on them, while others 
have names and numbers of streets; most of them names only. I present a specimen of each sort of slip. 
These slips have evidently been cut out of the book first produced, or one like it. The slips presented are as 
follows: 

“George Nolan, “Edward Reardin.” 

“ 44 Market street.” 

Witness. In this latter book there are also upon separate slips of paper other names and numbers. 

119 Upon this subject some specimens of the evidence are presented as follows: 

NEW YORK, December 29,1868. 

William FT. Hendrick sworn and examined. 

To the Chairman : 

I was engaged by Peter Norton to join a gang of repeaters, and it was understood that I was to be registered 
as often as possible on the two last registry days previous to the presidential election on the lid of November. 
Those two days of registry were October 30 and 31. On the night of the 30th of October I repaired to Peter 
Mitchell’s liquor store, coi ner of Bleecker and Greene streets, and I saw there a congregation of repeaters, 
I should say at least 40 men. There I met Peter Norton, who had engaged me. Hp took me to task for not 
being with them during the day. I made some plausible excuse, when I was told to be with them without 
fail the next day ; that is, I had missed the first day of the last two registry days, and was found fault with 
for not being on hand. I was told to be with them without fail the next day, the last registry day, at 7 o’clock 
in the morning. The next day I consulted with Colonel Bliss, who said that Superintendent Kennedy sug¬ 
gested that I should go on with these men and register with them, keeping a memorandum of my proceedings. 
After I was engaged with this party, I went to Colonel Bliss and reported the affair to him. I told him that I 
would not go with them unless I had some sanction from him, because I felt that I might compromise myself, 
and I was not willing to get into any such company, and go through with this business that they proposed to 
me, without I had some authority and some pledge that I would be protected in it. On the morning of the 
31st of October, 1868, I reported to Peter Mitchell, according to promise, and the only one of the gang I 
found there at that hour was David Somers, who claimed to be Peter Norton’s right hand man. He asked me 
to take a drink, and said that Pete Norton had been up with the boys all night, and that he had gone home 
for a nap. Dave said, “You and I will go about and do a little work registering, and then go and wake up 
Pete. We then went to a drinking saloon and saw Peter Burns, corner of Elizabeth and Houston streets, 
(No. 69 East Houston.) Mr. Peter Burns furnished us with names and a residence. David Somers took his 
own name as a resident of 69 Houston street, while he gave me a slip with the name of “ Charles Walters, 
69 Houston street.” From Burns’s place we went around the corner to the place of registry of this dis¬ 
trict, when David Somers registered himself as a resident of 69 East Houston street. He was ques¬ 
tioned sharply by one of the registry officers, and was challenged. He swore in his registry. I was then 
registered at the same place as a room-mate of David Somers, under the name of “ Charles Walters,” 
of 69 East Houston street. We then returned to Peter Burns's place, wbo inquired if it was 
all right, remarking that they had everything all snug in that district. Peter Burns then 
put the two names, as registered, on file, to be voted on election day, and we (David Somers and myself) 
then went to the place of registry of the 1st district of the 14th ward, where I registered my correct name 
and residence, 604 Broadway. David Somers would not register here, because he said he was too well 
known; besides, he said that he had registered his own name, the day before, in a dozen places in differ¬ 
ent parts of the city. We then went over to the 8th ward and joined more of the gang; I do not know their 
names. About three joined Dave Somers and myself, and the party, five in number, were all registered at 
the two registries on Greene street, one near Prince and the other near Broome street. Of the names there 
registered I only remember W. H. Travis, of 595 Broadway, and W. H. Travis, of 117 Spring street. When a 
second proposed to give his residence 117 Spring street, another member of the five remarked: “It won’t do 
for any more to give 117 Spring street, as there is only room there for one man, and four of us have already 
given in that residence.” Besides the above, others of the gang arrived, and. asking if all was right, registered 
at the above place as residents of 84 Greene street, the residence of Peter Mitchell, who was the candidate of 
that district for the assembly; I think it was the 5th assembly district. Dave Somers and myself then vrent 
to the house of Peter Norton, 142 Sullivan street, who roused up from his nap. Peter Norton and the three of 
its joined the main body at Peter Mitchell’s liquor store. There I saw slips served out for different districts by 
Alderman Norton and his brother, Peter Norton, and also by Peter Mitchell. Some 25 or 30 names were here 
given out, with residences attached. I was told that it was understood by the women at the different houses 
how to answer all the questions that might be propounded to them by the police or by detectives who might 
call to know who lived there, &c. The gang was then divided into parties of four, six, eight, and twelve, 
and went in different directions. The party I was with consisted of five, each one of whom made an extra 
registry at a polling place on Varick street. I have forgotten the names registered here. This was Aider- 
man Norton’s district. We then returned to Peter Mitchell’s liquor store, which seemed to be a general ren¬ 
dezvous for at least 50 repeaters. Here I was told by Peter Norton to join a party of 12 bound for the 6th 
ward. The parties were strangers, of whom I did not even kuow their names. I hesitated, but Dave Norton 
said it was all right. Dave Norton said, “It is all right; go along and do as the rest do, and I will make it 
all right.” I joined them, and we walked rapidly together to Alderman Cuddy’s place, 44 Bowery, and in 
five minutes time Alderman Cuddy in person produced a book that, must have contained several hundred 
names and residences. Each of the 12 was furnished with a name and residence. One was James Welch, of 
60 or 70 Mott street; another of George or William Bennett. I took James Darling, of 63 Mott street. Alder- 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


41 


pose, assembled at these headquarters where they were furnished with 
names and numbers, and under a leader or captain, they went out in ones 

man Cuddy parsed these cards over his counter. Each one got a card. I now present to the committee the 
card containing my name and address which I received: 


JAMES DARLING, 
60 Mott. 



2454. Q. State how he gave you that card.—A. He was looking over his book, and I was looking over Ins 
left shoulder. He looked over the list and said: “ Who will take John this, or John that?” He would call 
them off in that way. I felt that I must call for one name, and I waited until I heard a name that sounded 
like an American name. Most all the names were Irish—such as Sullivan or McCarthy. I felt that I could 
not present a name like that. Finally, when he called the name of James Darling, I said: “I will take this 
and that is the one he gave me. 

2455. Q. State if he looked at you when he presented it to you, or whether he handed it in such a way that 
he could not see you when he gave it to you.—A. I do not think he saw me. I do not think he caught my 
eye during the whole time I was in there. 

2456. Q. He handed it to you over his shoulder? A. Yes. We then went around to the registry on Bay¬ 
ard street, near the Bowery, and the whole twelve were registered there. One or two were challenged, but 
they swore themselves on the registry. Numbers 62, 66, 68, and 70 Mott street occurred very often on Cuddy’s 
book, which I saw by looking over his shoulder while he served our party with their names; also Nos. 62, 
64, and 68, on Bayard street. The gang I accompanied then returned to Peter Mitchell's, and after a few 
hours’ conversation, we agreed to be on hand election day and vote; and with the directions of Peter Norton 
that 1 should call on him for my reward, I left the party for the day. I was told by one of the party that 
they had done more work the day before (the 30th) than the day on which I was with them, (the 31st.) In 
conversation with the chief men of this gang since the election, I have heard several of them boast that they 
had been registered and voted over 20 or 25 times, and some of them 30 times. It was invariably the rule, 
when challenged, to swear the vote or registiy in. On receiving my instructions for the work on election day, 
and in reply to my remark, “But if I am challenged,” the reply was, “You must swear it in; if you once 
weaken you are gone up ; we will get you out, of course, but it will hinder the work.” 

2457. Q. I present to you four cards on which certain names appear. State what you know of them.— 
A. These are cards that I wrote myself. I stepped into a cigar store before I went to Peter Mitchell’s, and 
got these four cards and put them into my pocket with the intention of putting on them a memorandum of 
what I did while with the party during the day. I had a lead pencil in my pocket, and after we had regis¬ 
tered in Bayard street, I went back to Alderman Cuddy’s and took a drink, and while the rest were talking 
and drinking, I went down into the water-closet and wrote these cards. 

2458. Q. What did you write upon them?—A. Here is the name of James Goodwin, No. 70 Mott street; 
James Welsh, residence 142 Sullivan street. Here is another card with the name of Charles Walters, 69 Hous¬ 
ton street, and David Simmers. Both received slips of paper from Pete Burns’s porter-house, corner of Hous¬ 
ton and Elizabeth streets. David Dummers is said to have registered in real name a dozen times. This is 
the first time I have seen these cards since I gave them. Here is another which has upon it “ Gordon McKay, 
595 Broadway.” W. H. Travis registered twice—first from 117 Spring street, and 84 Green street. “George 
Bennett. 62 Bayard street, (it should have been William Bennett,) registered Bayard street, near Bowery.” 
Numerous registered from 142 Sullivan street. 

2459. Q. Who is Peter Norton ?—A. He is a brother of Alderman Michael Norton. 

2460. Q. What is he politically?—A. He is a democrat—at least I don’t know whether he has anj’’ politics 
personally, but he seemed to be interested in the success of the democratic ticket in that ward. 

2461. Q. State if you know the politics of these repeaters with whom 3 7 ou are associated.—A. Well, the 
repeaters—most of them that I was with that day—I do not think have much politics one way or the other, 
but they seem to have been keeping on good terms with certain parties in the locality. 

2462. Q. Did you learn of which political party ?—A. The democratic. 

2463. Q. Norton was in the interest of that party?—A. Yes, sir. 

2464. Q. And Burns?—A. He was a democrat. 

2465. Q. For whose benefit were you making these registries; for the benefit of the democrats or the 
republicans?—A. The democrats. 

2466. Q. Who employed you to engage in this business?—A. Peter Norton. Peter Mitchell was a candi- 
didate for the assembly, and kept a saloon; I think it is called the fifth assembly district. 

2595. Q. On what ticket was he running ?—A. I suppose the democratic. 

2596. Q. Was he elected?—A. I believe so. 

Hugh F. Dolan recalled. 

Witness. On the poll-books of the 2d district, 14th ward, I find on the registry-book the name of James 
Welsh, 142 Sullivan street; I also find his name on the poll-books of the same district in the vrard. I find the 
name of William H. Travis, 84 Green street, on the poll-list, and I find on the registry-book of the 8th ward, 
3d district, the name of Gordon McKay, 595 Broadway; I do not find his name on the poll-list. 

(Hugh F. Dolan came before the committee and presented the registry-list of the 2d district of the 14th 
ward, stating that he found upon it the name of Charles Walters, registered from 68 Hudson street.) 

3053. Q. State what names are registered in the 9th district of the 6th ward, as residing at 162 Bayard street.— 
A. In the 9th district of the 6th ward at that number, 162 Bayard street, I find the name of George Bennett; 
I also find his name upon the poll-list of the district. I find on the registry-list the name of James Darling, 60 
Mott street: I do not find his name on the poll-list of the district, I find on the registry-books of the 2d 
district of the 14th ward, the name David Summers, 69 East Houston street; his name is on the poll-list. 

William H. Greene: 

3386. I am patrolman in the 7th precinct; I am a member of the metropolitan police, and have resided in 
this city since 1852; shortly before the State election I was transferred to the 6th precinct, and was again sent 
back to the 7th. 

3386£. Question. State what you know of persons registering as voters prior to the last election at the 
house of William M. Tweed, Police Justice Shandley, and Coroner Keenan.—Answer. On the first or second 
day of the meeting oi the board of registration in the 6th district of the 7th ward, I was stationed at the place 





42 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK 


and twos and threes and tens and dozens, in nearly every part of tlie 
city, registering many times each, and when the day of election came 

of registry from 8 o’clock in the morning until 1 in the afternoon ; during that time a gang came there from the 
Bowery ; I knew several of them personally by name ; I knew that they did not live in the ward, much less 
in the district; there were some 20 or 21 of them. The following were registered from 169 Henry street, (Cor¬ 
oner Keenan’s house :) Henry Austin, George W. Baldwin, George Brown, Robert A. Jones, Lewis Leight, 
H. J. Lawrence, Charles Meyer, William Murphy, Dennis O’Neil, John Reilley, John Saunders. The fol¬ 
lowing names are registered from No. 167 Henry street, (the house of Police Justice Shandley :) George Ben¬ 
nett, Thomas Fitzgerald, George Morgan, James Weaver, George Williams. The following names were reg¬ 
istered from 197 Henry street, (the house of William M. Tweed :) Robert Gardner, Florence S. Gerald, 
Thomas Greene, Franklin Thomas, Thomas Boyd. I knew the best portion of these men. There are several 
of them who have got several aliases. None of them live in the district where they were registered. Here is 
a photograph of one of them who gave the name of Henry Lawrence. He has an alias of Charles Williams, 
and an alias of “Nipsey.” He was the leader of the gang. I got this picture at the station-house, where they 
have got pictures of all these celebrated men who live by their wits. 

3387. Q. State how this picture was taken.—A. “ Nipsey ” objected to having his likeness taken, and made 
all kinds of faces, and two men had to hold him, so as to get his likeness as accurate as possible. He registered 
from 169 Henry street, Coroner Keenan’s house. He is a celebrated pickpocket. He has stolen fortunes, and 
has been arrested several times, but somehow or other he always slips and is never prosecuted. 

3388. Q. Do you know what political party he acts with?—A. Yes, sir; the democratic. 

3390. Q. Did they swear them ?—A. That man Lawrence was not sworn. The thing went so far that I said 
to the registrars, “ Now this thing is played out here, by George. They are thieves from the Bowery coming 
to register from houses where they do not live, and I think you ought to put a stop to it.” One of the regis¬ 
trars spoke up and said, “We’ll lay for them on election day.” 

3391. Q. Did any of this gang swear in?—A. One or two of them were sworn. Meyer and Baldwin, and 
Murphy and Gardner were sworn, I think ; but this man Lawrence was not sworn, because he was supposed 
to be a native. I think he is an Englishman, but he passes for a native. Gardner aslo registered in the 4th dis¬ 
trict of the same ward, I think at No. 2 Pike street. Another pickpocket, who was with these men, goes under 
the name of John Reilly. His name is Patsy Nolan; he lives in Oxford street, and is now under arrest for 
stealing a diamond pin. 

3392. Q. These men were known as repeaters?—A. Yes, sir. 

3393. Q. Repeaters are generally of that class?—A. Yes, sir; they are of the lower order, and they are 
generally men who have no character, and who would as soon take a false oath as not. I spoke to this man 
Lawrence after he registered, and said to him, “I did not know you lived up here.” “O, yes,” said he, “I 
have lived here for two years." One of the men has no permanent residence, and hangs out at the New Eng¬ 
land Hotel and at a place on East Broadway, north of Catharine street, No. 20,1 think. In fact, he lives all 
over. 

3394. Q. Did any of these men have their lodging or residence in the house from where they registered?—A. 
No, sir. Henry A. Jones goes to Keenau’s house a good deal, but he does not live there. A few days after 
that I was notified to go down into the 6th ward to do duty. I did not know what I had done to be changed. 
I had done nothing wrong, but the thought struck me that it was for being a little efficient about the registry. 

3395. Q. Do you know whether you were transferred at the instance of Police Justice Shandley ?—A. I do 
know that perfectly well, because I was told so by Commissioner Acton and by Shandley himself. Shandley 
came down and said he would get me off the police, and would kick my damned head off, calling me a damned 
big bull-head. 

3401. Q. Were you transferred between the time of registration and the day of election ? A. Yes, sir. 

3402. Q. On the complaint of Police Justice E. J. Handley?—A. Yes, sir. A few days after the election I 
was transferred back again. 

John J. Mullen, (page 642,) says : 

7096. Q. State what you know' of persons registering on false names prior to the last presidential election in 
this city.—A. On the first registering day I was going down Cortlandt street, near the corner of Washington, 
when I met a young man, whom I recognized as Matthew Strip ; he keeps a grocery store in Albany street. 
He requested me to go in and register. I stated that I did not belong to that district. He said it made no dif¬ 
ference. I went in and registered under the name of J. J. Mullen, of 156 Greenwich street. The registering 
clerk knew me, and knew that I did not reside there. He gave me a wink that it was all right. His name is 
Michael Loftus. He keeps a livery stable in Washington street, between Liberty and Cedar. While I was in 
there, some 18 or 20 persons came in with papers and registered from 4L Vesay street. The other clerk, who 
was opposed to it, passed an insinuation that it must be a very lai-ge house, as some 40 had already registered 
from there. I came out from there about 6 o’clock in the evening, and was requested to go down to Washing¬ 
ton street, near Albany, where they were registering. There I registered again. I met Strip again there, and 
Dennis Hogan, brother of the Police Justice Edward Hogau ; they asked me if I had registered there yet. I 
told them no ; they told me to go in. I asked what number I would give ; they told me to give 117 Washington 
street. I went in and registered, and then Hogau said it was all right. I made a mistake and gave the num¬ 
ber as 115 Washington street, and Strip went in and told the landlord there. From there 1 went with Strip 
and Hogan to 34 Greenwich street and registered there, giving my residence as No. 12 Washington street. 
Then I went to Patrick Moore’s, brother to Alderman John Moore, and had a drink. I had to write there the 
names and places that I had registered under, and gave the memorandum to the bartender and he put it behind 
the bar for future reference. Alderman Moore in my presence issued out, I suppose, over 200 naturalization 
papers, taking them two by two out of a cigar box. He would draw the men aside and instruct them, and told 
them that the judge (meaning Judge Hogau) was there to protect them, and they could get into no trouble. 
Hogan saw me registering there, although he knew that I lived in the 8th ward. He saw me registering again 
at 99 Greenwich street, and he said nothing. 

7097. Q. How many persons were engaged in registering at the time you speak of?—A. The street was 
crowded with men waiting for their turn to come in, long-shore men, steamboat men, farmers and greenhorns. 
They got a few glasses of drink and were instructed that on election day they were to get $2 apiece for every 
time they voted. 

7098. Q,. Where were the headquarters of the gang that you belonged to?—A. There were two headquar¬ 
ters ; one at Morris Power’s, in Albany street, between Greenwich and Washington; and the other, I think, 
was at 57 Greenwich street, Alderman Moore’s place. Power is married to the alderman’s sister. 

7099. Q. How many gangs were there at these headquarters ?—A. I went in one gang of ten, in another of 
seven, and in another of four or five. The alderman told me two places in the 2d ward where 1 could regis¬ 
ter. I told him I did not know the names or numbers, and he said he would fix that for me. They would go 
into a building where they knew anybody, and would tell the people there to say that so-and-so boarded with 
them; and when an officer went to inquire whether a person who had registered did reside there, they would 
always answer yes. I registered twice under the name of Miller, and twice under the name of Mullen. I 
registered altogether ten times. The names I do not recollect, but they were written down and sworn to at 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


43 


these repeaters, supplied abundantly with intoxicating drinks, and 

police headquarters. I registered under the names of Murphy, Morgan, Moran, Gannon, and Gray. I went 
with a gang of 18 from Allen’s place up to the 15th ward to register. We all registered from a hotel up there. 

I took one man’s name who had registered from the same place last year, and the clerk looked at the registry 
book and said: “ Thatman voted last year: it is all right;” no questions were asked, I w r ent back to the 
hotel and had some more drinks, and I gave the bartender there also the list of our names. Then I registered 
in King street, No. 7, near Sullivan, giving the name of J. J. Mullen, and giving my residence as 59 Sullivan 
street, which is a lager-beer saloon. John O'Neill was the clerk there. He knew me, and knew that I did 
not reside there. The other clerk was Charles Fairchild. 

7101 Q. In the interest of what political party was this registration being made?—A. The democratic party. 

7102. Q. State if any violence has been threatened to you by reason of your having communicated these 
facts to police headquarters.—A. Not many nights ago my wife and I were walking along near Sullivan 
street, in Broome street, and I got a blow that knocked me senseless. 1 heard a voice singing out: “ That is 
the son of a bitch who sold us! kill him! kill him!” My wife screeched “murder!” two colored women 
threw themselves on the top of me, and two colored boys shouted “murder.” I do not know where the police 
were. When I came to I ran to the station-house. My wife lost her hat and cloak. They knocked her down 
for howling, and it appeared that these colored women were the only persons to save me. I went up in the 
morning and made a complaint against Higgins and his brother, and several other persons whose faces I recog¬ 
nized. I thought I saw a knife, but I have been since informed it was a revolver. I know there is a hole in 
my hat; but whether it was made by a bullet or by a knife I do not know. I went to Police Justice Dodge 
in the morning, and stated the case to him just as it occurred. He told me to go to Judge Dowling, at the 
Tombs, as I lived in the 5th precinct. I went to Judge Dowling, and he told me to clear out. Then I went 
down to the district attorney’s office. There were two clerks in there and Mr. Gunning S. Bedford, now city 
judge. I stated the case to them, and they told me that if Dodge and Dowling took no notice of it they would 
not. I told them I would appeal to the public for protection. I came up and went into the News office to 
have a statement written out, but they would not publish it, and would not have anything to do with it. I 
am registered at 96 Amity street; as James Gannon at 245 Thompson street; at 32 Grand street as J. J. Mul- 
len, residing at 403 Canal street; I am registered in Prince street, between Wooster and Greene, in the name 
of Jas. Gray, residing at 99 Prince street, and other places I forget; but the list of them is up at police head¬ 
quarters. 

7104. Q. State if any of those men engaged in this false registration have been indicted or punished, to your 
knowledge.—A. I do not know that any of them have been. 

7152. Q. Who induced you to go into registering?—A. The first who induced me was Strip. Dennis Ho¬ 
gan induced me, and so did his brother; and James Dolan, who keeps a large liquor store on the corner of 
Thompson and Amity streets, came with me and gave me a name and a number, and took me to the place 
and had me registered in Amity street. Eighteen of that gang w r ere all registered. James Dolan is a notorious 
character and a professional thief. 

Florence Scannell, (page 539) says: 

A. I registered 150 or 200 names in my ward. 

5759. Q. How many of these names were of men legally entitled to vote ?—A. I cannot tell that; probably 
none, probably a dozen. 

5760. Q. How many men registered these 150 or 200 names ?—A. About 30 men ; they registered about five 
apiece. 

5761. Q. Can you tell where they registered?—A. I cannot; they registered for almost every house in the 
district where I lived. 

5762. Q. What district is that?—A. The 18th ward. 

5763. Q. How many of those names did you leave unvoted?—A. I probably voted a hundred. 

5772. Q. Were those all fictitious names that you registered ?—A. I guess they were; they must have been 
fictitious, because 30 respectable men would not register 150 names. 

5773. Q. Which houses did they register at?—A. I cannot tell; different houses. 

5774. Q. Those persons who voted upon your fictitious names, did they vote the democratic ticket?—A. I 
cannot tell whether they did or not. 

5775. Q. Did you have any understanding with these men that they were to vote the democratic ticket?— 
A. I never had an understanding with a voter in my life. 

5776. Q. How many men did you get to vote upon the names you registered?—A. About 20, I guess. They 
voted upon from 70 to 100 names. 

5777. Q. Did they vote several times ?—A. Not that I know of. I suppose some of them voted two or three 
times. 

5778. Q. Did you give them slips of paper with names and numbers on?—A. Yes. 

5792. Q. Who keeps the Compton House?—A. My brother and a Mr. Fagin. 

Q. Is your brother a deputy sheriff?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is Mr. Fagin also deputy sheriff?—A. He is connected with my brother. The appointment was given 
to me first; but I did not want to have it, and I gave it to my brother and Mr. Fagin. 

5793. Q. Do you know who were living in that house in November last?—A. There were so many living 
there that I caunot tell the names. 

5794. Q. Did you not register fictitious names from the Compton House ?—A. Yes, sir; I did. 

5795. Q. Look at this list of 152 persons registered as living in the Compton House, and say which of them 
lived at the Compton House in November last.—A. I caunot say how many people I know ; some few names 
I recognize. 

5796. Q. State them.—A. Christopher Brown, Daniel Brown, Patrick Boylan, Wm. Burgoyn, Daniel A. 
Creamer, Charles Davis, Pierce English, Patrick Fitzsimmons, John Flood, James Gardner, F. A. Hauckey, 
James Lewis, Albert A. Meigs, Henry Owens, John Rollins, J. J. Scaunel, (that is my brother,) and Florence 
Scannel, myself: Wm. O’Brien, whose name is on the list, I know, but he does not live at that house ; there 
are 50 men who iive at the Compton House, aud who voted from that place, whose names are not on the list; 
the names I have mentioned are of men who work for me ; that is the reason I recollect them ; I may know 
all of them by sight; my recollection is very poor. 

By Mr. HOPKINS : 

5797. Q. Did you have care of the repeaters in the 18th ward?—A. No, sir; I had not care of more than a 

5798. Q. How large a number of men known as repeaters did you furnish ballots to ?—A. I did not furnish 

^**5799. & Q. Who did furnish tickets to the men you had registered?—A. 1 have nothing to say as to who did. 

5800. Q. Do you know who did?—A. Yes, sir. ,, , ,, „ . , 

5801. Q. State to the committee their names.—A. I cannot answer that; that won id not be honest to my mends. 

5805. Q. You say you had men registered in every precinct in the 18th ward?—A. Not every one. I did 

not register the names myself; I sent them to be registered. 



44 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK 


changing 120 coats, hats, or caps, as occasion required to avoid recognition 
or detection, commenced the work of u voting early and often,” 121 and this 


5806. Q. How many men did you send out to register these names?—A. Probably 30. It might have been 
only 20. 

Alexander Ostander sworn and examined. 

I am a lawyer for 20 years; for 12 years in this city ; I spent a couple of hours on the afternoon of election 
day down in the 6th ward ; I visited the poll in Elizabeth street, I think in the 6‘th ward, near Bayard street; 
there was a grocery on the corner of Bayard and Elizabeth ; I noticed quite a crowd in the store and about it, 
and I stepped inside ; there were several men leaning over the counter; engaged, as I thought, in looking over 
some papers; a man in a blue coat, just inside the door, partially stopped me as I was going in, and I said, 
“ Can I get a light for my cigar ?” He said there was nobody smoking there, and rather edged me out; I took 
the hint and went out and walked a:ong to the polling place, and the first thing I observed was a couple cf 
men changing caps outside and close to the polling place ; one of them went in, and I followed him in and I 
saw him vote; he then came out and re-exchanged caps with the other man; this operation was repeated 
several times, different men voting; there seemed to me to be half a dozen more men who were banded 
together engaged in that business, as I saw these men in company together, not only at that polling place, but, 
as I will tell you shortly, I saw them going together to another one in the same ward; I saw several men, 
and this blue-coated man appeared to be their leader ; a little while after, going around to a poll which w T as 
at No. 46 Bayard street, in a barber shop, and which was away about one block from this polling place on 
Elizabeth street, up towards Bowery, there was, just toward getting to it, a feed store ; the company stopped 
in front of that feed store, and they were furnished with little slips of paper on which were names and num¬ 
bers; how I knew that these were names and numbers was because I saw a man (not the blue-coated man, 
but another man who appeared to be also a leader) reading the name which was upon one of the papers and 
the number to a man who .apparently could not read; there were from four to seven of these men furnished 
with slips at that time and went in and voted. 

2274. Q. Were, they the same men who had voted at the other polling places ?—A. Some of them were the 
same men, for I recognized them. One of them, on going into the polling place, was told by the inspector, 
“you have voted before to-day, sir.” He appeared very indignant, and said he had not. The inspector took 
his name and number, and the man gave him his card of business. Another of the same men was told that 
the name was just voted, and the fellow simply turned upon his heel and went off without making any 
remark. I also saw these men coming out of a grocery store with these little slips of paper in their hands, 
and they also changed caps before going into the Bayard street polling place. 

2275. Q. You saw these men vote at different polling places?—A. Yes, sir. 

2276. Q. Can you state whether the same man voted more than once at the same polling place after changing 
his hat or cap ?—A. I would not swear positively that I saw any one do that, but I told you that I had never seen 
these men before, and things were a good deal mixed up; I was taking notes as rapidly as I could, and these men 
were changing hats and caps so frequently that I do not know. I could swear positively that I saw one man vote 
more than once at one polling place, but I am positive that I saw men go from the polling place on Elizabeth 
street, who had voted there, to the polling place on Bayard street, and vote there. From there I went to No. 
67 Baxter street, opposite to Franklin, and there I remained until the close of the poll. This was near the 
time of closing the polls. I saw the same operation of changing caps repeated there by several men w r ho 
stepped into an alley-way, just on one side of the polling place, where they could make the exchange, and 
step right out into the street and into the polling place and vote. I did not see them deposit their votes, because 
there was a great crowd in the room, and they went behind a sort of screen to vote. There was also a counter 
that extended from the screen out to the window opening on the street. I stood by that window, and a few 
minutes before the poll closed I saw a man come out from behind the polling place, behind the screen, with a 
slip of paper, upon which he wrote two names and numbers and handed them to a person outside the counter, 
who went out and brought in two men, as I took it, to vote upon those numbers. 

2283. Q. Have you ever known, in a contested election, that persons would go and find out who had not 
voted and send in other persons to personate them?—A. Yes, sir. 

2284. Q. That is the inference you drew in this case?—A. My inference was that these men who had access 
to the polls found that there were two names registered of men who had not voted, and they furnished those 
names to the parties outside that they might vote upon the names. 

2285. Q. That is the general style of repeating, is it not?—A. It is. 


George Bliss, Jr. 


I am a lawyer, and have been in this city for the last thirteen years. My knowledge of police 
matters arises from my being the attorney of the board of health and the board of excise, which is 
composed in part of the board of police. Their offices are in the same building. My relations, therefore, to 
police matters have been rather intimate for two or three years. I have been there every day during that 
time, with rare exceptions. I was actively concerned in endeavors to prevent frauds at the elections. Having 
very active charge of that matter through the city, my attention was of course directed to it. I found this 
state of things: I w-ould receive information that a man was intending to register fraudulently at a given 
place, and would send that information to the police. A man would come up and say he lived at a certain 
place. The inspector would question him as to whether he lived there, and would administer an oath to him. 
I saw two or three instances of this kind. The inspector wmuld challenge the man and swear him, and the 
man would swear that he lived at such a place. The inspector having only an unsworn statement handed to 
him, the board considered that it was bound to allow the man to register. Before the election, inquiry enabled 
us to ascertain that the man did not live at the place from which he claimed to vote. He would come up on 
election day, be challenged, and swear his vote in. (To Mr. Kerr.) I saw that in a single case. I didnot 
see the same man who presented himself and was registered come on election day and vote; but I saw the 
thing done partly in the registry and partly in the voting by different men. Under the registry law, the 
inspectors are obliged, if a man who has registered swears his vote in, to take it. The inspector who has 
charge of the books then requires the police to arrest the man. Another inspector says, “ Don’t arrest him !” 
and it is a question of republicans and democrats, the board being divided two and two. In one of the cases 
which I saw at one poll, the officer declined to make an arrest, as the majority did not direct him to do so. In 
the other case, the officer did make the arrest. The party was taken before a justice and held to bail, and I 
know by general report that he, with all the others, was discharged the next day. That is substantially the 
state of the case which did prevail at the last election at all the polls in this city. I say that from having had 
before me and talked with nine-tenths of the republican registrars of this city. 

120 See Evidence, 2273, 2276. 


121 See Evidence, pages 419, 425, 427, 428, 436, 448, 452, 473, 480, 482, 485, 487, 501, 505, 
429, 535, 507, 512, 544, 574, Ac., 2769, 3071, 3088, 3U43, 3U51, 1885, 2895, 2902, 3316, 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


45 


was carried on by these vagabonds until, wearied and drunken, night 
closed on the stupendous fraud which their depravity had perpetrated. 

With all the concealment which cunning could invent, or perjury 
secure, or bribery purchase, or the fear of punishment inspire, or the dread 
of violence 122 from bands of conspirators and democratic desperadoes could 
command, or the blandishments of more accomplished kna ves could entice, 
or the hope of office could buy, 123 or fear of the loss of place could bring, 124 
all of which would naturally conspire to throw obstacles in the way of or 
defeat the investigation of the committee, it is by no means possible 
that the extent of these frauds has been revealed even in any one ward, 
but this may be approximated from the proof as to election districts in 
various parts of the city, and by statistical tables showing the voting 
population at previous periods, with the average increase in those periods, 
from which the actual voting population of 1868 may be computed with 
reasonable certainty. These frauds are so systematic in New York that 
the operation is called “repeating,” and those engaged in it are called f 
“repeaters.” The evidence of “repeating” consists of proof: 

First. That names of persons were registered from houses of given 
numbers and streets, on which the poll-lists show votes to have been 
given, though no persons of those names had any such residence or exist¬ 
ence anywhere. 

Second. That certificates of naturalization in great numbers to names 
of fictitious persons were distributed to enable the work of repeating to 
be perfected. 

Third. That gangs of men were actually engaged in the business, as 
shown by witnesses who saw them and their repeating books. 

Fourth. Of the disclosures made by the repeaters themselves; and 

Fifth. Of statistical tables demonstrating that the vote of 1868 was far 
in excess of the voting population. 

1.—FALSE REGISTRIES AND VOTING AS FROM SPECIFIED HOUSES AND STREETS. 

Under the first class of proof, and as a specimen of what undoubtedly 
existed all over the city, the committee present the following table: 

2788, 1846, 1853, 391, 3400, 3260, 3269, 3675, 3695, 2924, 2067, 1825, 1807, 1814, 1856, 
2429, 3055, 3098. 

Evidence as to repeating: The fact of “repeating ” in the interest of the democratic party 
is proved by witnesses unimpeached as follows : W. H. Hendrick, 2452; John M. Lawrence, 
4024 ; Michael Brady, 5819 ; James Strong, 6248 ; John McClusky, 7833 ; Francis Charles 
Murray, 6705; John McCabe, 6788; John Wood, 6368; John Gregory, 6455; William 
Dorans, 4496-4539; James Melville, 4287; George Harris, 4187; Joseph Benson, 4269. As 
to Geo. Johnson, there is some conflict in his statements, but none as to the fact of his re¬ 
peating, 4926-5966. See also evidence of William H. Greene, 3386; George W. Walling, 
3676; James Irving, 3844; John Coyle, 3850, as to release of repeaters by the judges. 

Then there are others about whose evidence there is some controversy: George Hill, 4941 ; 
James Nichols, 4988,6170; William Wood, 5027; George Melville, 5226: Charles Reilly, 
4816; John Heath, 7042; James Clark, 5287; James Green, 5334; James Smith, 6906; 
Charles Ferguson, 6913; John Hughes, 6917; John Kagle, 6924; Edward Clark, 6945; 
Edward Cobb, 6947; William Wilson, 5424; George Nelson, 6228. As to some of these 
there is some evidence to disprove their residences as given. The fear of violence may, 
perhaps, account for some of this. (See evidence of Edward Sanford, 5412, 5479, 6033; 
William Ward, 7040, 7233; Edward H. Bergen, 5480; John J. Mullen testified to false 
registration for repeating, 7095. He is contradicted by Edward Hogan, 7394, but is corrob¬ 
orated, 8584. And see O’Brien, 5382-5483; Murray, 5510,5832; Le Barnes, 5858, 5918; 
Gaillard, 6847.) 

123 See Testimony, answers 1813, 1900, 1984, 1987, 1931, (page 193,) 4132, 4135, 5506, 
5832, 5840, 5918, 6000, 6003, 6847, 7102, 8297. 

123 See Evidence, 2851, 2852, 2885, 571-572. 

i« Evidence, 8293, 3402; Costello’s evidence, and 3395, 3386. 




ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 



•T 


125 Rendezvous for gang of “at least 50 repeaters,” (see Evidence, top of page 239—7114.) . 

Headquarters for gangs of democratic repeaters were established at most of the places above mentioned. The following houses may also be added : Alderman Cuddy’s, 44 Bowery 
(see Evidence, top of page 239—2640, 4327, 6947;) 62, 63, 66, and 68 Mott street, and 64 and 68 Bayard street, (lb .;) 48 and 54 Sullivan aud 531 Broome street, (4024, 5819, and 5824;) 

































































































ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


47 


2.— NATURALIZATION OF FICTITIOUS PERSONS. 

It has already been shown 126 that certificates of naturalization were 
issued on fictitious names. 


3.— GANGS OF “REPEATERS.” 

The evidence shows conclusively that bands of men, on the days of 
registration and election, traversed the city of New York, registering and 
voting on assumed or fictitious names. 

Some idea of the mode in which this was done, and the official position 
of persons engaged in it, maybe inferred from the extracts from the evi¬ 
dence and table hereinabove given. 

The extent of the aggregate of all forms of illegal voting, as has been 
stated, may be deduced from the statistical tables alluded to. The extent 
of the “repeating” may be inferred from the evidence. 127 

How the 7th ward was manipulated may be seen from the interest 
that James O’Brien, sheriff of New York, took in it. He breakfasted 
4 ‘ confidential friends ” 128 on the morning of the election. Repeaters testify 
that several of their number partook of his hospitality. u Some 300 or 
400 men were sent there”—deputy sheriffs, (3887, 3880)—for duty in this 
single ward on the day of the election, though he u did not apprehend 
that the 1,399 republican” voters of that ward would disturb the peace or 
overawe the men who cast 6,812 democratic votes. These appointments 
were made without any u requisition from the mayor, or governor, or 
police authorities.” Such appointments were unusual, and had not been 
made for years. The sheriff could not fail to know of the plans of the 
repeaters. The police force of the city, over 2,000 in number, a large 
proportion of whom are democrats, are charged with the duty of preserv¬ 
ing the peace. Yet the sheriff says he appointed these deputies in this 
ward and u ordered them to arrest any one who interfered with the voting /” 
Of course, the repeaters must not be interfered with! This was evidently 
a part of the scheme of repeating. 


II.— Fraudulent canvassing. 

There is evidence to show that it was a part of the gigantic scheme of car¬ 
rying the democratic ticket in the /State of New York ky fraud to delay the can- 

No. — Catharine street, 29 East Broadway, (3675, 3676;) 25 Allen street, (4295.) Numbers 14,16, 18, 20, 29, 38, 
39, 40, 63, 66, 73, 80, 82, 87, 90, 92, 108, 117, 120, 163, 165, and 173 East Broadway, (Evidence, 3676, 4532, 4536, 
and 4538.) Numbers 34, 37, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 54, 73, 76, 80, 92, 96, 98, 106,111, 122, 124, 150, and 227 
Henrv street, (Evidence, 3676, 4532, 4536, and 4538.) Numbers 13, 18, 26, 28, 38, 42, 48, 50, and 54 Market 
street', (Evidence, 3676, 4532, 4536, and 4538.) Numbers 54 and 64 Monroe street, 173 Madison and 83i Division 
street— (lb.) Corner of Monroe and Jackson streets, (Evidence, 6382;) Albany street, between Greenwich 
and Washington and Alderman Moore’s, 57 Greenwich, 156 Greenwich, 117 Washington, and 59 Sullivan 
streets, (Evidence, 7096-99;) and 103 Crosby street, (Evidence, 4237, 4269, 4496, 4503-05, 4509, 4510.) 

But one of the largest and most thoroughly organized headquarters was at the Jackson Club, corner of Second 
avenue and Thirty-second street. James 0 ; Brien, sheriff of the county of New York, would seem to be an active 
member and a controlling spirit of the Jackson Club. In connection with this club-house, where some two or 
three hundred repeaters were lodged the night before election, and where O’Brien was present during a great 
portion of the night, the sheriff, who resided within a single block, admits that on the following morning he kept 
open house at his own residence, and the repeaters testify to being taken there from the club-house before day¬ 
light and fed. (See Evidence, 4237, 4269, 4510, 4515, 4518, 4519, 4926, 4989, 5335, 5336, 5388, 5389, 5399, 5402, 
6541, 6547, 6550, 6567, 6575, 6579, 6580, 6593.) See 197 Henry street, Evidence, 3098, 3386 ; Coroner Keenan, 
3386; McClusky, Evidence, 7841. 

Evidence of registering illegally attempted for the purpose of repeating, and on fraudulent naturalization 
papers ; Evidence, pages 31, 32, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 85; numbers 1252,1806,1846,1966,1978, 2061. 

126 See Chapter II, ante. 



40, 50,52 ; numbers 1807, 1845,1857, 1885,1930, 2067, 2273, 2453, 2770, 2788, 2895, 2905, 
2929, 3071,3088, 3269, 3317, 3386,7841. 

128 Evidence, 5402; and see “Errata” to the volume of evidence, for the expression “con¬ 
fidential friends.” 



48 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


vassing of the vote in the city of New Yorh until the result in the counties of 
the State should be known, and then make up any deficiency not supplied by 
repeating and other fraudulent voting , by “ stuffing the ballot-boxes ”—by a 
fraudulent canvass, or count of the vote. 

A. OAKEY HALL’S SECRET CIRCULAR. 

During the political canvass of 1868, A. Oakey Hall, now mayor of 
New York city, was secretary of the democratic State committee, with 
an office in the city. Samuel North, who during the war had been 
arrested and tried by the military authorities “ for making false votes 
under the soldiers’ voting law,” 129 was secretary of the main committee. 
He and Hall “to a very great extent directed or supervised” the details 
of the business of the committee. Immediately preceding the November 
election a secret circular was written by Mr. Hall, printed, and “ sent to 
the chairman of every county democratic organization in the State,” 130 as 
follows: 


[Privata and strictly confidential.] 

Rooms of the Democratic State Committee, 

October 27, 1868. 

My Dear Sir : Please at once to communicate with some reliable person, in three or four 
principal towns and in each city of your county, and request him (expenses duly arranged 
for this end) to telegraph to William M. Tweed, Tammany Hall, at the minute of closing the 
polls, not waiting for the count, such person’s estimate of the vote. 

Let the telegraph to be as follows : 

“This town wiil show a democratic gain (or loss) over last year of (number: ”) or this one 
is sufficiently certain: “This town will give a republican (or democratic) majority of-.” 

There is of course an important object to be attained by a simultaneous transmission at the 
hour of closing the polls, but no longer waiting. Opportunity can be taken of the usual 
half-hour lull in telegraphic communications over lines before actual results begin to be 
declared, and before the associated press absorb the telegraph with returns and interfere with 
individual messages ; and give orders to watch carefully the count. 

SAMUEL J. TILDEN, Chairman, 

And for some reason this circular was kept so secret that it was pro- 
parti d and issued without the knowledge of Mr. Tilden. 

The concluding words in italics were written “ to call particular atten¬ 
tion and make it emphatic .” 131 There was of course u an important object 
to be attained .” 

A. OAKEY HALL’S ADVICE AT A SUNDAY MEETING OF DEMOCRATIC CANVASSERS. 

Some facts in connection with this may be material. 

Mr. Hall testifies “ that the practice at former presidential elections 
in canvassing the electoral vote was simply to count each ticket as a whole 
without reading the name of each elector.” 132 But on the 28th October a 
circular was issued from the “ rooms of the Tammany Hall general com¬ 
mittee,” signed by John Fox, George A. Purser, and A. Oakey Hall, to 
the democratic canvassers of the city, requesting them to meet at Tam¬ 
many Hall on Sunday before the election. 133 At this meeting Mr. Hall 
‘ advised the democratic canvassers to canvass all the names of elec¬ 
tors”—that is, to “ read over the name of every elector on every ticket.” 135 
He says, “ one of his objects was to prolong the count as far as possible.” 138 


129 Evidence, 5565. 130 Evidence, 2937. 131 Evidence, 2938. 

132 Evidence, 3567, 3553. 133 Evidence, 3553. 134 Evidence, 3555. 

136 Evidence, 3564. 136 Evidence, 3558. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


49 


THE EFFECT OF IT. 

Tlie effect of this “ then was, that,” in answer to the private circular , 
Tammany Hall “would get the vote from the country (counties, by tele¬ 
graph) before they could get the vote of the city, ” 136 the polls closing at 
“ six minutes before 5 o’clock p. m.” 137 Another effect of this would be 
that it would enable the two canvassers at each polling place , where a con¬ 
spiracy was arranged for the purpose , to change republican tickets for demo¬ 
cratic , or “ stuff the ballot-boxesadd democratic tickets , and have them 
counted accordingly. 

The instructions for delay had the desired effect. The democratic can¬ 
vassers very generally followed their instructions. “More than two 
hundred” 138 telegrams came to Tammany Hall in answer to the circular, 
showing how well the programme was arranged, understood, and carried 
into effect. By about half past 8 o’clock p. in. on the evening of the 
election “about one-third of the State had been heard from.” 139 

The returns of the different wards of the city are sent by telegraph 
to “ the headquarters of the police department, 300 Mulberry street,” and 
“ the clerk of the superintendent of the metropolitan police department ” 
testifies that “ the total presidential canvass (of the city) was not ascer¬ 
tained until nearly 1 or 2 o’clock of the night after the election; ” 140 and 
though some of the wards were returned earlier, Mr. Hall himself says 
the returns were “almost three hours later than usual.” 141 

In some of the districts, where the democratic canvassers commenced 
the canvass in the unusual mode advised by Tammany Hall, this method 
was abandoned after the canvass had progressed, when private advices U2 
communicated to such canvassers seems to have led to a sudden change 
of purpose and practice. Whether they were advised the purpose of 
the delay had been accomplished may be inferred. With this private 
advice all legal scruples as to the mode of canvassing at once disap¬ 
peared. 

BALLOT-BOX STUFFING. 

That this time was employed to some extent in “ stuffing ballot-boxes” 
is proved beyond a doubt. Henry Johnson, a poll clerk in the third elec 
tion district, fourth ward, 143 testifies as follows: 144 

There were names added to the poll-list during the day of persons who had not voted— 85 
names in that district. The total vote returned was 682; the number of votes actually 
polled was £97. During the afternoon names were taken from one of the registers of one of 
the district inspectors to the number of 85; and 15 or 20 at a time were added to the voting 
list, while there was a lull in the rush of voters. In the evening the counting of the presi¬ 
dential vote was delayed until about half-past 11 or 12 o’clock, for some purpose which at 
that time was unknown to me, now well known ; the democratic canvasser insisting upon 
counting the vote of each of the 35 electors separately, and making out a tally-list for each; 
and the republican canvasser insisting upon taking each ticket with 35 votes, and making 
out a single tally list, which would have taken three-quarters of an hour, while the other 
w r ay would have taken eight or ten hours. By that time the republican canvasser had be¬ 
come pretty well intoxicated, and during the evening there were 85 tickets, containing each' 
of the democratic candidates, obtained from some of the booths outside, and when the tick 
ets were shoved out on the table to be counted by the canvassers these additional tickets- 
were thrown in so as to make the number correspond with the number of names registered. 
From the time of the closing of the polls the republican and democratic canvassers were- 
wrangling as to the propriety of counting the votes. At half-past 9 or 10 o’clock the 
democratic canvasser asked me if I had any objection to keeping the tally. I told him if 

136 Evidence, 3558. 137 Evidence, 3566. 138 Evidence, 2937. 

139 Evidence, 3562. 140 Evidence, 4406. 141 Evidence, 3561.. 

142 See Evidence of Charles Nettleton, February 6. 

H3 g ee evidence of Costello and others, February 6. The evidence, page 362, shows the votes 
returned as Johnson testifies, and this corroborates his evidence. 

144 Evidence, 82, 86. . 

H. Bep. Com. 31-4 




50 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


they directed that to be done, I should certainly do it. They went on and tallied about 500 
votes, when two or three gentlemen came in, called him one side, and whispered to him. He 
came back and agreed to the terms proposed by the republican canvasser. I then asked 
him why he had been objecting to that all this time. He said that two years ago the re¬ 
publicans in the interior defeated John T. Hoffman by holding back until they had heard 
from the city, and that now he meant to be even with them and to hold back the count until 
the interior had been heard from. 


TIIE DISTRICT OF JOHN MORRISSEY, JAMES M’CARTIN, AND GEORGE FRANCIS TRAIN. 

In tlie 5th congressional district in New York city, and the, 5th election 
district, 13th ward, the canvass, as returned, showed votes for repre¬ 
sentative in Congress, for John Morrissey, (democrat,) 229; for James 
McCartin, (republican,) 131; for George Francis Train, (independent,) 1. 

Train’s attorney took “ a large number of affidavits of persons who 
swore that they voted for Train,” 145 and he procured also u affidavits of 
various parties who swore that they voted for Train” 145 in that election 
district where the canvassers found he only received one vote. 

Peter Hale testifies that u from 30 to 50 voted for Train. He saw the 
tickets deposited in the ballot-box.” 146 

FRAUDS IN THE FIVE DIFFERENT WARDS. 

Some idea may be formed of the mode and extent of the fraudulent 
voting or canvassing, by other facts. 

By law, none are entitled to vote unless they are registered. 

It is impossible to tell how many votes were added by canvassers in 
the 340 election districts of New York city, in most of which, those 
engaged in the frauds were satisfied to keep within the registry. But 
in some of the districts, in five of the twenty-two wards , even this precau¬ 
tion was not used, as will be seen from the following table showing the 
excess of votes over registry : 147 


Sixth. 

Eleventh 
Thirteenth ... 
Twenty-first. 
Twenty-third 

Thirtieth_ 

First. 


Total 


District. 


Fifth.. 

Sixth.. 

Eighteenth .... 
Nineteenth .... 
Nineteenth .... 
Nineteenth 
Twenty-second 


egist'd. 

Vote. 

Excess. 

520 

588 

68 

863 

864 

1 

513 

517 

4 

180 

190 

10 

179 

227 

48 

285 

305 

20 

885 

90 L 

16 

3, 425 

3, 592 

167 


And it is abundantly proved that many names of voters were put on 
the poll-lists of voters when no such names were registered. 148 

It was not possible for the committee to trace this species of fraud in 
detail in all the districts. Its existence is proved. It was not confined 
to one locality, but was wide-spread. 149 Ample arrangements were made 
to perfect it. 150 

146 Evidence, 4986. 

Hfi Evidence, 5^83. 

147 Evidence, 37J 8. 

148 Evidence, 5953, 4567, 5561. 

149 Charles W. Burton testifies: 

I attended the election in one of the wards of this city, (the 3d district of the 19th ward,) where some three 
Totes were received which were not on the registry. * * I was at the polls when they were closed, and one 
of the canvassers refused to go on with the count while I wus there. One of the canvassers was anxious to 
go on, but the other refused. [Evidence, 261. J 

J5 ° Marshall Murray testifies : 

571. Q. We are advised here that certain officers received ballots and that at a certain hour of the day they 
turn over the ballot-boxes to two other officers called the canvassers ?—A. Yes, sir. 

572. Q. And that the canvassers are constituted in the same way?—A. They are supposed to be so cousti- 




























ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


51 


The democratic party, without any fraudulent votes, had a large ma¬ 
jority in the city of New York. Their purpose, therefore, was to carry 
the iState. Frauds were planned on a scale commensurate with the 
object, and executed so as to accomplish it, and this furnishes evidence 
of their extent. It is impossible that those engaged in frauds so numer¬ 
ous, wide-spread, and extensive, would fail to perfect arrangements to 
make their work effectual. 


THE SECRET CIRCULAR. 

A. Oakey Hall, the author of the secret circular, was a witness before 
the committee. He could not fail to know that it had been charged that 
“the vote in New York was largely in excess of the legal voters;” 151 yet, 
on the stand as a witness, he made no denial of this , nor did he aver 
that the secret circular had no purpose on the part of any one to secure 
such a result. 152 

He states one of its objects thus: 153 

The purpose was to get local estimates from our democratic friends with which to compare 
and to check the returns when they came in. * * * * 

The object was to get what would seem to be superficial guess-work, but which was 
really an approximate statement. 

Bylaw the presidential electoral vote must be counted first. 154 Adopting 
the usual mode of counting, this could be done in a very brief time, for 
Mr. Hall says, “after closing the polls” an “hour usually elapses when 
the results are beginning to be known everywhere.” 

According to Mr. Hall, then, the object was to find out how well the 
interior democrats could guess! He wanted their “local estimates with 
which to compare and to check the returns when they came in.” Three 
hundred and forty democratic canvassers were solemnly assembled on the 
Sabbath, and instructed to delay the count; “ the chairman of every county 


tuted. I was going to explain that to yon. I discovered in September last that some forty or more of these 
canvassers, who were the most noisy men in the republican party in this city, invariably turned up as can¬ 
vassers ; and that they were at the same time holding sinecure positions in the-street commissioner’s office at 
$3 a day; and that the only duties that they performed was to act as canvassers, and to get this appointment 
with a view to counting the votes. I knew what that meant, and I called the attention of our State central 
committee to the fact. I know all about this counting a man out and counting a man in ; I knew it was done 
for money; I knew that if you and I were canvassers in a certain election district in New York, and that if 
there were 1,000 votes polled in that district, that if John Doe got 550 and Richard Roe 450, John Doe had a 
majority of 100; but I could not understand that John Doe would get 950 and Richard Roe only 50 unless you 
and I understood each other. I probed the thing pretty fully, and went before our State central committee 
and made a statement of the facts; they appointed a committee, of which I was chairman, to ventilate these 
facts, and we did it pretty thoroughly. Instead of forty men being in that "position I found three times the 
number—scaly fellows who were in the market; I struck out myself 225 names from this entire list. They 
held the office of registrars and canvassers. 

573. Q. Professing to be republicans?—A, They were in point of fadt. 

574. Q. And were bought over and were acting in the interest of the democratic party?—A. Yes, sir. 

575. Q. Does the law require that the votes shall be canvassed in the presence of other parties than the 
canvassers?—A. The law requires that they shall be canvassed publicly, but during the investigation which 
I had occasioned to make I found some cases where they had locked themselves up in a room, taken the 
ballot-box in there, and canvassed it to suit themselves. 

576. Q. Violating the law entirely?—A. Violating the law; the polldist shows that so many votes were 
polled, and that the candidates have run pretty even, but the canvassers took so many from A to give them 
to B, and the total tallies. 

151 Senate Mis. Doc. No. 4, 3d session 40th Cong., p. 6. 

152 He says, in connection with the purpose to get local estimates from the country, that 
“ the idea of this circular was not to perpetrate frauds, but to check frauds.” Whether by 
“ checking frauds” there was a purpose to offset country frauds by city frauds, as a check, 
does not appear. Colonel Samuel North, who, with Hall, directed all the details of the 
committee, did not ask to appear as a witness, nor did any member of the committee or per¬ 
sons implicated in frauds deem it advisable to call him. 

Mr. Hall further testifies : 


I wish to disavow the remotest intention, on our part, of in any Way advising the canvassers in the city of 
New York as to the state of the country polls ; and, as a matter of fact, I state that no one single canvasser 
in the city of New York knew what was the country poll, excepting as he may have heard it was announced 
at Tammany Hall or Cooper Institute. 


The public announcement gave all the opportunity necessary to know the state of the 
canvass to any engaged in a conspiracy. 

i53 Evidence, 2937. 154 Evidence, 3505. 


154 Evidence, 3505. 



52 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


democratic organization of tlie State” was addressed, and 200 telegrams 
received to test the guessing capacities of rural democrats, for the innocent 
edification of the urban leaders of Tammany Hall, including A. Oakey 
Hall!! 

Why this could not have been as well accomplished without the secrecy 
enjoined by this circular does not appear. 

But then there was “another object,” Mr. Hall says: 

Another object of this circular was to induce gentlemen upon our side to apply in such 
numbers and so frequently to the telegraph offices of the State that the operators would know 
that returns of some kind were expected over the wires, for I believe that nine-tenths of the 
telegraph operators in this State are republicans. 

From this it would seem that all over New York State, outside of its 
enlightened commercial metropolis, the republican telegraph operators, 
on the evening of an election at which a President, governor, members of 
Congress, senators, members of assembly, and other officers were voted 
for, did not “know that returns of some kind were expected over the 
wires.” But happily for New York city, the talent of its high officers 
was equal to the emergency. 

The Sunday meeting of canvassers, the secret circular to the democratic 
chairmen, induced “ gentlemen upon the democratic side to apply in such 
numbers and so frequently to the telegraph offices of the State that the 
operators” did find out “that returns of some kind were expected.” 

Mr. Hall says the circular was headed “strictly confidential” because 
they “ did not want to attract particular [public] attention to it.” Yet 
how this would enable operators to know that “returns of some kind 
were expected” is not perceived. This mode of reaching the republican 
operators was rather indirect. The work might have been accomplished, 
perhaps, if the superintendents of telegraph lines had sent a general 
despatch giving notice “that returns of some kind are expected!” 

These objects alone would scarcely seem to justify so great an 
expenditure of time, talents, and other resources, in relation to the 
secret circular. 

The examination of Mr. Hall proceeds: 

3557. Q. Your object, then, was to get the returns from the country before they got the 
returns from New "fork ? 

A. No; our object was to prevent their getting the New York vote ; it was nothing to us 
to get their vote, except as we opened the wires and made them send their vote. 

“ Nothing to us to get their vote.” Then why was the secret circular 
sent"? It says there was an important object to be attained by it. 

But Mr. Hall proceeded to testify: 

There was, of course, an important object to be attained in the words written by me in 
the manuscript after the receipt of the circular, because 1 wanted to call particular attention 
of parties into whose hands this might fall through the post, and to make it emphatic. 

What that “ important object” was he does not disclose, beyond what is 
stated. But whatever the “important object” was, it seemed necessary, 
in order to accomplish it, that the condition of the vote in the interior 
of the State should be immediately known in the city, for he says, in 
answer to the question: 

2940. Q. But the moment you commenced receiving telegrams in response to that circu 
lar, you then desired that they should know it ? 

A. Certainly. 

And the importance of the object brought 200 telegrams, which were 
read as soon as received from the desk at Tammany Hall, “and then at 
the Manhattan club, to splendid congregations of mourners.” 

It is a significant fact that Samuel North did not volunteer to enlighten 
the committee, nor did any one of the committee or others deem it 
advisable to call him. <• 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


53 


CHAPTER Y. 

HOW THESE FRAUDS WERE PERPETRATED—RESPONSIBILITY OF THE 
DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 

The city of New York embraces and is coextensive with the county. 
The city and county government comprises a metropolitan board of police 
commissioners elected by the legislature. This board appoints a superin¬ 
tendent of police, a police force of over 2,000 police officers, 1,360 inspect¬ 
ors of registry and elections, 680 poll clerks, and an equal number of can¬ 
vassers. The city and county government also has a mayor; a common 
council of 21 aldermen and 21 assistant aldermen; a comptroller who is 
the chief financial officer; a city chamberlain, appointed by the mayor 
with the consent of the board of aldermen; a board of 12 supervisors; a 
sheriff, with deputies innumerable; a supreme court, with five judges; 
a county clerk, who is ex officio clerk of the supreme court, with a deputy 
and numerous assistants; a superior court, with six judges, a clerk, deputy, 
special deputy, and assistants; the court of common pleas, with three 
judges, a clerk, deputy, and assistants; the marine court, with three 
judges ; a court of general sessions held by a recorder and city judge; 
eight police justices; eight district courts, all with clerks and other offi¬ 
cers ; a district attorney; a street commissioner and deputy, with clerks 
and employes ranging from 70 to 600. The mayor, aldermen, assist¬ 
ant aldermen, comptroller, half the supervisors, the judges, sheriffs, 
county clerk, district attorney, and police justices are all elected by the 
voters. The city government has revenues amounting to about 
$23,000,000, with a patronage to dispense, contracts to let, and power 
otherwise larger than many of the States. New York city sends 5 
senators and 21 members of assembly to the legislature, and six represen¬ 
tatives to Congress, all elected by the voters. 

All these officers are democrats except half the board of police com¬ 
missioners, half the election officers, 155 about one-half of the police force, 156 
onepolice justice, 157 and five supervisors; and thereisbut one 158 republican 
ward in the city. 

With this army of democratic officers, a portion of whom are unscru¬ 
pulous and corrupt, and with the power of appointment over and pat¬ 
ronage for a multitude of men whose places too often depend on parti¬ 
san services, with the capacity by fraud to so enlarge the vote of the 
city as to control the election in the State of a governor and other State 
officers, and the electors of President and Vice-President, sometimes 
decisive of a presidential election in the whole nation, with power to 
elect members of Congress who may decide the political complexion of 
Congress, there exist powerful motives for, and the amplest means 
of, perpetrating vast frauds. These motives have been indulged and 
these means employed to an extent which knows no parallel in this 
country. Prior and up to the time of the late presidential election it 
was palpable and perfectly notorious 159 that naturalization frauds were 
being perpetrated on an extensive scale, and that bands of “repeaters” 
were organized and hired for their work. Almost at the head of politi- 


■»See Evidence, 1855, 1931, (page 187,) 4389. 

166 Page 51—2938. 

157 No. 3512. 

158 See Evidence, 544, 1238, 6668, 6669. 

189 Evidence, pages 26, 28; Nos. 2847, 3088, 3768. 



54 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


cal operations in New York stood Samuel North, who was arrested and 
tried during the war “for making false votes under the soldiers’ voting- 
law.” 

No democratic official, officer of justice, or politician toolc any measures 
to defeat or prevent these f rauds, but they did take measures to aid them, and 
to obstruct the purposes of those who attempted in vain to defeat them. 

These frauds are so monstrous in character and extent that they could 
not have been the work of a few, or of inany irresponsible individuals. 
It was the worlc of the democratic party. In their purpose and modes of 
execution they show a systematic plan, devised by controlling minds, for 
the purpose of carrying the election in the State. The plans were on a 
scale comprehensive enough to accomplish the purpose designed. 

THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO ACCOMPLISH THE FRAUDS. 

The means employed to secure these thousands of illegal votes were 
the use of fraudulent certificates of naturalization, to enable aliens and 
“ repeaters” to vote; the system of “ repeating ,” so successfully and exten¬ 
sively adopted ; and frauds in canvassing the result of the vote. All these 
have been adverted to. To make these means successful the necessary 
agencies were employed to prevent detection, 160 as far as possible, and to defeat 
the purposes of those who would expose or interfere with the execution of 
these fraudulent schemes. 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF CITIZENS. 

An association of republican citizens, 101 desiring to prevent these frauds 
of “ repeaters ” and of persons voting in districts where they were not 
entitled, took steps to prevent them, but they met with such obstacles that 
their work was practically unavailing. 

THE POLICE CENSUS OBSTRUCTED AND PREVENTED. 

By law the police force is charged with “ the general duty of prevent¬ 
ing the violation of the election laws.” 163 There was in existence an order 
of the Metropolitan Police Board requiring a census to be taken of legal 
voters with a view to detect and prevent attempted fraudulent voting. 163 
To carry out this purpose the superintendent of police, a republican, 
recently before the presidential election ordered a portion of the police 
force to take a census of the voters in different wards, though the demo¬ 
cratic members of the board “ refused to make an order to require the 
census to be taken.” 164 

A. Oakey Hall, then district attorney, elected mayor of the city in 
December, says the avowed object of taking the census “ was to prevent, 
and if carried out as avowed it would decidedly prevent, fraud.” Yet 
he, an officer of the city, charged Avith the duty of prosecuting violators 
of the election laws, and counsel of the police board, says, 165 “ as a demo¬ 
cratic editor and a democratic politician I myself gave advice” to the 
people, “ and especially democrats, not to furnish the names of persons to 
the police force engaged in taking the census prior to the last election.” 
He could not fail to know of the purposes of the “repeaters;” he took no 
steps to detect or prevent the execution of them plans, but defeated the 
purposes of the police force. 

lti0 See Evidence, 3686, 3401, of Wm. H. Green. Note to Chapter IV. 

161 Evidence, 1957, 4802. J63 Evidence, 3530. Evidence, 3514. 

164 Evidence, 3520, 105 Evidence, 3533. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


55 


Under his advice his democratic followers and the democratic news¬ 
papers threw such obstacles in the way of the census that it became 
impracticable to take it and it was abandoned. 1650, 

HOW CHALLENGING WAS PREVENTED—TERRORISM AND VIOLENCE. 

By some means many of the inspectors of registry and election were 
appointed for duty in districts where they did not reside and so could not 
have personal knowledge of voters. 166 

Challenging illegal voters was so far prevented by terrorism and vio¬ 
lence that it was of rare occurrence either at the registry or on the day 
of the election, and in many districts no challenges were made. 167 It 
would be impracticable here to describe fully the means resorted to to 
prevent challenges, but they are abundantly shown in the evidence. 

The 2,000 deputies of Sheriff O’Brien were u ordered to arrest any one 
who interfered with the voting.” 

Challenging was to a great extent prevented by the advice given and 
followed that the holder of a certificate of naturalization presenting it 
could not be questioned as to his right under it to register and vote. 168 

THE CONSPIRACY. 

When the connection of Sheriff O’Brien with his u confidential friends” 
is understood, his appointment of 300 to 400 deputies in the 7th ward, 
the arrest of Urmy by a posse of his deputies, the motive for and pur¬ 
pose of appointing 2,000 deputies on the day of the election, can be under¬ 
stood. 169 

The increase of the clerks and employes in the street commissioner’s 
department to beween 500 and 600 about the time of the election, is also 
a significant fact. 170 

But the evidence of a grand conspiracy to perpetrate these frauds is 
abundant. The mayor of the city, iioav the governor of the State, the attor¬ 
ney general of the State, the district attorney, now the mayor, and others 
less distinguished, rendered it valuable aid. 

On the 19th of October the Tammany Hall (democratic) general com¬ 
mittee called a meeting, intended to be private, of the 680 democratic 
inspectors of registry and election of the city, to be held on Sunday , 
October 25, to receive instruction from the district attorney and Tam¬ 
many Hall leaders as to their duties in registering voters and receiving 
their votes. 

Although it was 'notorious that thousands of fraudulent certificates of 
naturalization had been distributed broadcast 171 over the city to per¬ 
sons who never appeared in court to be naturalized, and that others had 
been procured on fictitious and assumed names to be used by repeat¬ 
ers, 172 yet the district attorney advised these inspectors, and u a good 

See Evidence, .3111, 3112, 3115, 3099, 3514, 3517, 3520, 3533, 3547, 3537. 

J66 Evidence, 2095, 2147, 3031. 

167 See Evidence, 462, 933, 1073, 1306, 1785, 1799, 1813, 1824, 1825, 1844, 1845, 1968, 
2093, 2220, 2924, 3027, 3075, 3099, 3263, 4059, 4063, 4132, 4164, 4213,4575, 4580-83, 4606, 
4820, 3514, 3553, 1872, 1900. 1984, 1922, 1930, 1935, 2341, 2897, 2912, 3260, 3395, 3863, 
3386. No sufficient challenging, 933, 1073, 1306, 1785, 1799, 1813, 1968, 2093, 2220, 2924, 
3027, 3263, 3075, 1824, 1844. Obstacles, 1786, 1794. Republican meeting of inspectors, 
1279, 1300, 1960. 

See last section Opinion Attorney General, page 337. 

I6!) Evidence, 3863. 

170 Evidence, 2850, 2881. 

171 Evidence, 2, 92, 199, 222, 784, 1149. 

» 7 * Evidence, 7800-3, 7805-8, 7961. 



56 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


many citizens/ 7 “that when a person had a certificate of naturalization 
it was conclusive evidence of his right to be registered as a voter.’ 71 ' 3 
And the attorney general gave a written opinion that “ if the papers are 
in form and have the signature of the clerk and the seal of the court 
impressed, the board has no legal power to disregard them. 77174 

This advice was implicitly followed by the democratic inspectors. 175 

That this advice, so well calculated to encourage fraud, was erroneous, 
may be seen from the evidence of A. Oakey Hall, as follows: 

3535. Q. Do you know the reputation of Henry E. Davis, John K. Porter, Henry Hilton, 
and William Fullerton, as lawyers and men of integrity ?—A. Yes, sir; in my judgment 
there are no better lawyers or men of more integrity in the city of New York than those 
gentlemen. 

They gave an opinion as follows: 

New York, October 28, 1868. 

First. We are of the opinion that the inspectors of registry must be “satisfied” that any 
person claiming to be registered is a legal voter, and in seeking to satisfy themselves they 
may gather evidence from the statements of the applicant, and from other sources. If, either 
from an examination of a person who presents to them a paper purporting to be a certificate 
of naturalization, or from other evidence, they are not satisfied that the applicant is the per¬ 
son to whom the certificate was issued, or are not satisfied that he is entitled to its possession, 
in any such case it is the duty of the inspectors to refuse to register such persons. 

Second. As the inspectors must be “ satisfied” of the right of the applicant to be registered, 
his mere claim to be so registered, apart from his oath or from other evidence, does not in 
any way establish his right. Inspectors in receiving or rejecting names act quasi-judicially, 
and must act fairly upon evidence satisfactory to their own minds. 

Third. We are of the opinion that the oath of an applicant for registry is not conclusive 
as to his right to be registered, and that consequently, even if an applicant offers to take 
and does take the legal oaths, the inspectors should still refuse to register him if from evi¬ 
dence they are satisfied that he is not a legal voter within the election district. 

On the 31st October, tlie mayor of tbe city, liimself a candidate for 
governor, issued a proclamation which, while falsely asserting that the 
United States marshal had “assumed to himself the power and duty of 
appointing swarms of special deputies to take their places at the polls, 77 
though he did not appoint one, 176 was oblivious to the fact that Sheriff 
O’Brien had appointed 2,000 deputy sheriffs, with orders “to arrest any 
one who interfered with the voting/ 7 and then the proclamation, without 
any specific notice of or warning to the “repeaters 77 or holders of fraudu¬ 
lent certificates of naturalization, paralyzed all efforts to detect and pre¬ 
vent fraud, and gave encouragement to these classes to vote illegally, by 
saying: 

Let no citizen, however, be deterred by any threats or fears froip the discharge of his duty 
at the polls or elsewhere, but let him assert his rights boldly, resolutely, and at the same 
time with calmness and dignity, and he will find his perfect protection under the laws and 
lawfully constituted authorities of the State of New York. 

By virtue of authority vested in me by law, I hereby offer a reward of $100, to be paid on 
the arrest and conviction of any person charged with a violation of the election laws of this 
State, and a like sum to be paid on the arrest and conviction of any person charged with 
intimidating, obstructing, or defrauding any vote*- in the exercise of his right as an elector. 

He did not enumerate “ repeating 77 or voting on fraudulent certificates 
of naturalization specifically as violations of tlie laws, though he was 
specially careful to warn all who might intimidate voters, whom he ad¬ 
vised to assert their rights boldly. He saw the necessity for this, though 
not the greater necessity for detecting repeaters and other illegal voters. 

173 Evidence, 3547, 3592. 174 Evidence, 3568, 3435. 

175 Evidence, 2319, 2403, 2765, 2766, 2098, 4163. In Westchester county aliens were fur¬ 
nished with certificates of naturalization by the deputy county clerk without any proceeding 
before a judge or court. The democratic, inspectors refused to allow inquiry into the validity 
of naturalization papers. Evidence as to registering and voting on fraudulent papers, 2765, 
3492,3568, 3533, .1042, 1060,1806,1825,1845,1849, 1864, 364, 381, 383,403, 462,468. 

176 Evidence, 3290. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


57 


Tlie proclamation characterized the allegations of fraud in naturaliza¬ 
tions as u gross and unfounded charges against those high in authority.” It 
denounced the u grand jury of the United States court” for indicting in 
the usual form those notoriously guilty of naturalization frauds, and 
alleged that the purpose was to “ intimidate them in the discharge of their 
public duties ,” as if it was a public duty for courts to issue, and people 
to distribute, fraudulent certificates of naturalization! 

IMMUNITY FOR CRIME—PROTECTION TO THE GUILTY. 

With the courts, the officers of justice, all controlled by men elected 
as democrats, and with the vast official and personal influence of the 
dominant party in the city, men can escape all punishment for crime if 
faithless officers so determine. Immunity and protection were promised 
repeatedly 177 to those engaged in these election frauds. 

Numerous arrests were made by some of the police of persons ille¬ 
gally voting in the interest of the democratic party, 178 but none by the 
sheriff or his deputies. 

A majority of the board of inspectors of election are authorized to 
make arrests for illegal voting. 179 

The board of metropolitan police commissioners being equally divided 
politically, 180 the election officers are generally in the same condition. 
The democratic inspectors in each election district have it in their power 
therefore to prevent arrests, and very often availed themselves of that 
power to shield the guilty. 181 

Many others would have been arrested, but it was so well understood 
that arrests were to be followed by release that this mode of pre¬ 
venting frauds was but of little avail. 

And it is a lamentable fact that official dereliction of duty reached 
such a fearful point that all who were arrested under city or State 
authority have been released. 182 

The grand jury assembled since the election manifested no disposition 
to prevent these frauds, 183 and the guilty perpetrators are all at large, 

177 Evidence, 1074-5, 7096, 4779, 3605,3685, 3844, 3690,3709,3395. Evidence, pages 29 , 
32.68. Evidence, number 1253, 1807, 1845, 1946,2783, 1966, 3055, 3066,3400. Release, 
3605, 3685, 3844. Power to arrest, 1966, 3846. All democrats but one, 3846, 3512. 

See Evidence, 306, 319,352, 629, 793, 1254, 1807, 1946, (page 188,) 2783, 3066, 3400. 

17 9 1966. 

Evidence, 317, 562, 568, 1236, 2739, 6675. 

Evidence 933, 1786, 1870, 2757, 2767, 3196, 3260, 3316-17, 4135, 4163. 

182 Evidence, 3605, 3685, 3844. 

183 John H. White testifies as follows : 

To the CHAIRMAN: 

4779. I reside in this city ; have lived here for over 20 years; am a lawyer by profession ; was a witness 
before the grand jury of the court of oyer and terminer in the month of November last. A. Oakey Hall, our 
present mayor, was then district attorney. I was summoned to appear before the grand jury, and was 
examined by Mr. Hall. I was personally acquainted with more than half of them. They were, with but 
one exception, all prominent and leading democrats. 

4782. Q. Can you state if any indiciments were found by the grand jury for illegal voting or fraud in con¬ 
nection with the elections of this city ?—A. I never heard that any one was found. 

4783. State what you know, if anything, of evidence of fraud being produced to the district attorney or to 
the grand jury hi reference to illegal voting.—A. I was asked by the district attorney whether I knew of any 
frauds being perpetrated at the late elections. I said I did; that 1 knew of the fact that false naturalization 
papers were obtained; that many persons voted illegally; and that I had evidence of that kind in my posses¬ 
sion which I could produce. One of the jurymen remarked that I was not called for that purpose; that if 
they needed me, they would let me know. They then requested me to retire, and told me that they had got 
through with me. 

4784. Q. State whether steps were taken, with your knowledge, either by the district attorney or the grand 
jury, to investigate illegal voting.—A. I never received any notice from the grand jury. I told them that I 
would be ready at any time to give them information, but. they never called on me. 

4785 Can vou state what connection any of the members of the grand jury had with Tammany Hall?—A. 
The foreman of the grand jury was Mr. Charles H. Hsswell. He is a prominent member of the democratic 
party • another member was John G. Bradley, one of the sachems of Tammany Hall, and State senator; there 
was also Morgan L. Harris, Henry D. Felter, Patrick G. Maloney, William Withers, Morgan Jones, that I 
noticed at the time as prominent members of the democratic party. 

4786. Q. State to what extent, within your knowledge, persons have been convicted or punished for illegal 



58 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


apprehending no danger from prosecutions. Then the vast preparations 
for naturalization upon a scale without precedent, the manner of secur¬ 
ing naturalizations, the democratic naturalization offices, the plans for 
false registering and repeating, the distribution of fraudulent natural¬ 
ization certificates, extending not only over New York city but to other 
counties of the State—these and all the facts in connection with them 
prove a grand conspiracy of which the democratic leaders could not 
have been ignorant, and which, therefore, had their sanction, as they 
took no measures to prevent it, but did render it valuable aid. 

Congress has never enacted any law prescribing the times, places, or 
manner of holding elections for representatives in Congress, or affixing 
penalties for frauds at elections of representatives, or electors of President 
and Vice-President. 

The investigations of the committee show that State laws, and their 
mode of administration, cannot, in all cases, be relied on to prevent these 
frauds, or protect citizens in the exercise of the elective franchise, and 
especially in some of the great cities. 

The national government should always have the power of self-preser¬ 
vation, and should not permit great frauds on the elective franchise in 
the election of national officers in States unable or unwilling to prevent 
or punish them. 

In the few days which remain of the present Congress it would not be 
practicable for the committee to mature, or Congress to consider, adequate 
remedies for the evils which our investigations disclose, but they seem 
to require that, at some time, Congress should consider, among other 
measures, the following : 

I. A bill to prohibit the supreme court of the State of New York, in the 
county of New York, and the superior court of the city of New York, 
from admitting aliens to become citizens. 

II. A bill revising the naturalization laws in such manner as not to 
restrict the existing rights and facilities afforded to aliens to become citi¬ 
zens, but to secure the most liberal provisions for that purpose, and pro¬ 
vide adequate penalties for violations of the laws by courts, witnesses, 
and applicants, and to secure legal naturalizations to persons entitled 
thereto. 

III. A bill requiring that the members of the House of Representatives 
of the next and every succeeding Congress from each of the States, and 
delegates to Congress from the Territories, shall be elected on the same 
day in all the States and Territories, which shall be the same day that 
electors of President and Vice-President shall be appointed in each State 
in the years when such electors are to be appointed. 

IV. A bill declaring officers under State authority, performing any duty 
affecting elections for members of the House of Representatives, to be, 

voting, or any frauds upon elections, in this city for the last three years.—A. I do not know of a single instance. 
I have known of the arrest of parties, but they were subsequently discharged. * * * * 

479^ Q. Do you mean to say that the district attorney neglected his duties in the punishment of crime 
through the agency of the grand jury ?—A. I have merely stated what took place, so far as I know. 

4793. Q. Do you know any motive that would justify you in making such a statement as to throw doubt 
upon the fidelity of the grand jury?—A. I was examined in reference to what took place at the Fifth Avenue 
Hotel in regard to the books and papers of the republican party. That was the first intimation I had upon 
the subject upon which I was to be examined. The district attorney then asked me if I knew of frauds being 
perpetrated at the last election. I told him I did; that I had evidence in my possession which I could pro¬ 
duce. One of the grand jury, and I think Mr. Hall also, stated that they were not upon that subject; if they 
wanted me, they would let me know. 

4794. Q. Do you mean to say that you could have stated at that time facts within your personal knowledge 
relative to fraud?—A. Yes, sir—from my own knowledge. I had in my possession at the time fraudulent nat¬ 
uralization papers. 

4795. Q. How do you know they were fraudulent ?—A. They were papers surrendered to me by parties 
who had obtained them. I would have given them to the grand jury, with the names of the parties. 

4796. Q. You say no indictments have been found that you know of against persons engaged in illegal 
voting: please state whether you know of anystrong republican community in New York finding an indict¬ 
ment and punishing persons for offences against the election laws.—A. I think there have been some prose¬ 
cutions in the interior of the State ; I think one in Livingston county. See 3395. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


59 


for sucli purposes, officers of the United States, and prescribing penal¬ 
ties for fraudulent voting and other election frauds either by officers or 
others. 

Y. A bill providing a mode of contesting the election of President and 
Vice-President, and of the electors thereof. 

VI. A joint resolution proposing an amendment of the Constitution so 
as to provide that “Congress may at any time by law make or alter 
such regulations” as have been, or may be, prescribed in any State for 
the appointment or election of electors of President and Vice-President. 

VII. A joint resolution proposing an amendment of the Constitution so 
as to provide for the election of President and Vice-President directly by 
the voters of the United States, or that the electors of President and 
Vice-President now authorized shall, like Representatives in Congress, 
be elected in single districts prescribed by the States, unless prescribed 
by Congress. 


CHAPTER VI. 

THE EXTENT OF THE FRAUDULENT DEMOCRATIC VOTE IN NEW YORK 

STATE IN 18G8. 

At the election on the 3d of November, General Grant for President, 
and Hon. John A. Griswold for governor, were the republican candidates 
in opposition to Hon. Horatio Seymour for President, and Hon. John T. 
Hoffman for governor, the democratic candidates ; the total republican 
vote was 419,883 ; the total democratic vote was 429,883 ; democratic 
majority, 10,000; total vote, 849,706. In the city of New York the 
republican vote-was 47,738; the democratic vote was 108,316; democratic 
majority, 60,678; total, 156,054. 

The largest frauds were in New York city, and in the strong democratic 
counties. 

HOW THE FACT AND THE EXTENT OF THE FRAUDULENT VOTE IN NEW 
YORK CITY IS SHOWN. 

The evidence shows that an immense fraudulent democratic vote was 
cast in the city of New York, and this is confirmed by the fact that the 
increase of votes in 1868 over previous years was vastly greater than the 
ordinary average increase of voting population , and by the further fact that 
the percentage of voters to population largely exceeded that of any previous 
year. These also demonstrate the extent of the frauds in the city. 

It has already been shown that illegal or fraudulent certificates of 
naturalization were issued, probably to the extent of 68,343, on most of 
which votes were cast, and the “repeaters” cast many thousand illegal 
votes in addition. 

THE VOTE OF 1868 TOO 1 GREAT AS COMPARED WITH VOTERS IN PRE¬ 
VIOUS YEARS. 

The official State census of New York shows that the actual voters in 
the city in each tenth year, commencing with 1835 and ending 1865, with 
the percentum of increase each decade, have been as follows : m 


184 See Table O, Evidence, 3723. 



60 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


Year. 

f 

Actual voters. 

Decades. 

Rate per cent, 
of increase. 

]835 . . 

43,091 
63,927 



1845. 

1835 to 1845 

18.3 


88,887 

1845 to 1855 

39 

1865 185 . 

128,975 

1855 to 1865 

45.2 


Thus it will be seen the total increase of voters in a period of 30 years 
was 132J per cent., or an annual average increase of 4.4 per cent, per 
year—the increase in the last period of 10 years being 4J per cent, per 
year. Taking the largest rate of increase in these several decades of 4^ 
per cent, a year, and the estimated number of voters for 1808 could only 
be 146,380, or only 146,000 at the average rate of increase. 

But all the actual voters do not vote. From 1845 to 1865 the average 
per centum of voters who actually voted in the State was 186 only 76.66, 
and the average at presidential elections from 1848 to 1864, inclusive, 
was 87.19. In cities, as a general rule, a larger per centum of voters do 
not vote than in the country. 187 In the vote of 1868, in the whole State, 
including the frauds, the average was only 92 per cent, on the basis of 
the census of 1865, while in New York city the per centum was 108! 


185 The soldiers voted in 1865. (Evidence, 5565, and page 356.) No inference can be drawn 
against the number of voters by reason of absence of soldiers ; on the contrary, many of 
them voted who, of course, subsequently settled elsewhere and ceased to be voters in New 
York in 1868, so that the estimated vote of 1868 should be really reduced thereby. 

186 See Senate Mis. Doc. No. 4, 3d session 40th Congress, as follows : 

Actual and comparative results of different elections. 

(The mimber of votes shown by the census is here supposed to iucrease equally between the years on which 

the census is taken.) 


Years. 


1845. 

1846. 

1847. 

1848. 

1849. 

1850. 

1851. 

1852. 

1853. 

1854. 

1855. 

1856. 

1857. 

1858. 

1859. 

1860. 
1861. 
1862. 

1863. 

1864. 

1865. 


Office for which cast. 


Senators . 

Governor. 

Secretary of state 

Governor. 

Secretary of state 

Governor. 

Secretary of state 

Governor. 

Secretary of state 

Governor. 

Secretary of state 

Governor. 

Secretary of state 

Governor. 

Secretary of state 

Governor . 

Secretary of state 

Governor. 

Secretary of state 

Governor. 

Secretary of state 


MX© 

W Cw 

c> 

> xW 
es 

fc s § s 

rl Z o a 
c z* x: ^ 

3 X x O 
& 


" CS 
0«2 


E c .S 0) 




as s 
o 5 . 
> a ® 


337, 496 

539, 379 

62.38 

406, 720 

550, 673 

73. 85 

325, 013 

561,967 

53. 52 

460,166 

573, 261 

80. 27 

407,059 

584, 556 

69. 63 

432, 59? 

595, 850 

72.51 

401,083 

607, 144 

66. 06 

525, 391 

618, 439 

84.95 

372, 100 

629, 733 

59. 25 

470, 595 

641, 027 

73. 59 

436,419 

652, 322 

66. 90 

594, 347 

669,414 

88. 78 

440, 022 

686, 506 

64. 09 

545, 529 

703, 598 

77.53 

503, 063 

720, 691 

69. 80 

673, 469 

737, 783 

91.27 

487, 567 

754, 875 

64. 59 

603, 038 

771,967 

78.12 

599, 439 

789, 059 

75. 97 

731,010 

806, 151 

90. 68 

573, 421 

823, 484 

69. 62 

and including 1856, has 

been as 


For the whole State the ratio of absentees at presidential elections, sii 
follows: 1856, 14.5 per cent.; 1860, 12.3 per cent; 1864, 10.1 per cent. In former years the proportion of 
absentees iu New York city has been uniformly greater than it has been through the State. For the same 
time above specified the ratio of absentees in New York city has been : 1856, 14.2 per cent.; 1860, 12.3 per 
cent.; 1864, 11.6 per cent.; taking the voting population to be. as stated by the census of 1855 and 1865, and 
allowing tor the gradual increase in other places. Part of this may be accounted for by the fact that men 
“pair off,” &c. 

187 Evidence, Table No. 3, 4236, p. 423. 










































































ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


61 


• But if 00 per cent, of the voters actually voted in the city the proper 
vote would be 131,717, whereas 156,051 votes were cast, showing a fraudu¬ 
lent vote in the city alone of 21,307. 

So much for actual voters. 


THE VOTE TOO GREAT AS COMPARED WITH THE VOTE OF PREVIOUS 

YEARS. 


Now for actual and estimated votes. In the period from 1818 to 1867 
the increase in votes has been at the rate per cent, as follows : 188 

From 1818 to 1852. 8 per cent. 

From 1852 to 1856. 38^ p er cent. 

From 1856 to 1860. 20 per cent. 

From 1860 to 1861. 15J per cent. 


The vote of 1861 was 110,390; the vote of 1865 was 81,868—a decrease 
of 29f per cent. 

The vote of 1866 was 111,169—only an increase of a little over 3 per 
cent, on the vote of 1861. 

The vote of 1867 was 111,862—a decrease on the vote of 1866. 

From 1818 to 1861 the average increase is 20J per cent, in every four 
years, or about five per cent, a year; from 1856 to 1861 the average yearly 
increase was less than 1J per cent. 

It has been abundantly demonstrated that the average increase since 
1810 has not exceeded four per cent. 189 

The vote of New York city in 1868 was 156,051, being an increase of 
19f per cent, in one single year ! 


i88 Evidence, 5562. Mr. Sweetzer gives the vote as follows : 


Year. 

Total vote. 

Year. 

Total vote. 

Year. 

Total vote. 

1850. 

36, 552 
42, 790 
57,341 
45, 386 
60, 367 
56, 047 
79, 606 

1857. 

59, 770 
69, 699 
56, 734 
95, 583 
55, 976 
76, 848 
66, 896 

1864. 

110, 390 
81, 868 

114,169 

111, 862 
156, 078 

185L. 

1858. 

1865. 

1852. 

1859. 

1866. 

1853. 

1860. 

1867. 

1854. 

1861. 

1868. 

1855. 

1862. 


1856. 

1863. 




Evidence, 4236. 

In 1866 John T. Hoffman was the democratic candidate for governor against Reuben E. 
Fenton, republican. The contest was exciting, and Ihe latter was elected by 13,787 majority. 
This brought out a full vote. In 1867 the contest was over secretary of state and attorney 
general. 

:89 Senate Mis. Doc. No. 4, 3d session 40th Congress, as follows: 



Whole vote cast as 
per election returns. 

Calculated at 4 per 
cent, per annum 
on vote of 1840. 

Calculated at 4 per 
cent, per annum 
on vote of 1860. 

Available voters es¬ 
timated from cen¬ 
sus. * 


95, 583 

92, 225 

95, 583 

98, 033 


57, 462 

95,914 

99, 406 

101, 642 


76, 947 

99, 750 

103, 382 

105, 251 

1863 ... 

66, 946 

103, 740 

107, 517 

108, 860 


110, 390 

107, 899 

111, 817 

112,469 


81, 920 

112, 215 

116, 289 

116, 078 


114,255 

116, 703 

120, 940 

120, 721 


112, 007 

120, 371 

125, 777 

125, 550 


156, 054 

125,185 

130, 808 

130, 572 























































G2 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


The percentage of increase from 1864 to 1868, as indicated by the 
enormously large vote of the latter, was 41^ per cent., 190 or more than 
twice as much as the average percentage of increase of previous presidential 
elections! 

The accuracy of this is shown by a comparison of the actual and estimated votes from 
1860 to 1867, inclusive, in all which years the actual vote never exceeded the estimated vote. 
The frauds of 1868 are proved by the fact that this year there is a large excess of the actual 
vote. And the same law of increase applies elsewhere, as shown by the following statement 
of actual and estimated votes : 



1855. 

1860. 

1864. 

1868. 

A ntiial votes in Brie county_______......_..... 

19. 957 

23, 326 
22, 950 

26, 438 

30, 379 

Votes estimated at 15 per cent increase in each period of four years 

19, 957 

26, 393 

30, 352 


If the votes actually cast at that election had been at such [usual] average, there would 
have been 133,000 votes, or 23,000 less than has been actually declared in the official can¬ 
vass. Taking the rate of increase from 1860 to 1864, 15£ per cent., as the basis of the num¬ 
ber of votes that should have been polled in 1868, there would have been 128,500, or 27,500 
less than were declared. 

So much for actual and, estimated voters. 

THE VOTE TOO GREAT AS SHOWN BY THE AVERAGE RATIO OF VOTERS 

TO POPULATION. 

Henry E. Sweetzer, who is connected with the democratic press of 
the city, shows by a table the ratio of votes to population at each pres¬ 
idential election from 1852 to 1868, (taking the population as returned 
by the census immediately preceding such elections,) as follows: 


Year. 

New York city. 

Year. 

New York State, except New 
York city. 

Vote. 

Population. 

Ratio. 

Vote. 

Population. 

Ratio. 

1852. 

57, 341 
79, 606 
95, 583 
110,390 
156, 078 

515, 547 
629, 904 
813, 669 
813,669 
726, 386 

1 to 8. 99 

1 to 7. 82 

1 to 8. 51 

1 to 7. 37 
l to 4. 65 

1852... 

439, 624 
517, 883 
579, 573 
620, 331 
693, 688 

2, 581, 847 

2, 838, 591 

3, 067, 076 
3, 067, 076 
3, 105, 391 

1 to 5. 89 
1 to 5. 48 
1 to 5. 29 
1 to 4. 94 
1 to 4. 47 

1856. 

1856. 

I860. 

1860 . 

1864. 

1864. 

1868. 

1868. 




While the average ratio of voters to population from 1852 to 1860 was 
1 to 8.44, this ratio was increased in 1868 to be 1 to 4.65. The war 
withdrew from the city a considerable voting population, many of whom 
perished by casualties or disease, and many more of whom become per¬ 
manent residents elsewhere. 191 

190 Evidence, 4236, 5562. 

191 Evidence, 3741 and 6952, where Judge McCunn testifies: 

I find from a “report of the special committee on volunteering in the comity of New York," signed by 
Orison Blunt. Win. M. Tweed, and Wm. R. Stewart, that the whole number of men furnished from first to 
last, during the rebellion, by the city and county of New York was 148,676. 

There were not actually that number, as this includes re-enlistments. Three months regi¬ 
ments and others were re-enlisted. 

Mr. Jarvis, the intelligent and candid clerk of the common pleas, testifies as follows : 

6311. Q. State whether during the war a large proportion of the foreigners of this city went into the army ?— 
A. I do not kno\v the fact. I presume they did; a great many did. 

6312. Q. State whether from your knowdedge of the city, in addition to those who were killed and died of 
disease, a large portion of those who went into the army did not remain in other portions of the country?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

And see Evidence, 3741, 6952, showing 148,676 soldiers furnished by the city, many of 
them foreigners. 













































ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


G3 


This is confirmed by the fact that the State census of 1865 only shows 
a city population of 726,386, while the population of 1866 was 813,669. 
Yet in the face of these facts the ratio of voters to population was 
largely increased in the city while there was no corresponding increase 
in other portions of the State. 

But if the population of 1868 be estimated by the usual average 
afforded by the census returns of 1S50, 1855, 1860, and 1865, it will be 
785,790, 192 and if a liberal increase be made on this, and with any possible 
ratio of voters to population, the result would show more than 27,000 
fraudulent votes. 

If the ratio of voters to population was allowed to be as one to six , 
which is (/reciter than urns ever ascertained at any previous election , then on 
a population of 785,790 the vote would only be 130,965, thus showing a 
fraudulent vote of 26,089. 

When all these tests unite in proving the same result , corroborated by undis¬ 
puted facts , showing great frauds, the conclusion becomes irresistible that at 
least 25,000 fraudulent votes were cast in New York city at the election in 
November. 


THE DEMOCRATIC SIXTH WARD. 

But this is proved still further by conclusive details. 

By way of example the population and vote, past and present, of the 
sixth ward may be cited. 

The total male population in 1860 was 13,465, which had diminished in 
1865 to 9,717, a loss of 3,748, 193 by reason of business houses supplanting 
tenement houses. 194 

The voting population of this ward, as shown by the census of 1865, 
was, native, 599 ; foreign, 3,546 ; total, 4,145. The probability is it had 
not increased, but rather diminished. But if the highest rate of increase 
of 4f per cent, per annum be allowed the voting population of 1868 would 
be 4,707, and conceding the largest average of 90 per cent, for actual 
voters and the vote cast would be 4,236 $ whereas the votes reported as 
cast were 5,401, thus showing a fraudulent vote of 1,165, which doubt¬ 
less was, in fact, over 2,000 in that single ward. 

1 1 is unnecessary to trace wards in detail. The evidence shows the 
existence of these frauds in various parts of the city, and the inference 
is irresistible that the conclusion already deduced is correct. 

These frauds extended to other counties of the State, as shown by the 
testimony and as demonstrated by the same tests applied to the city. 195 


19:2 This is shown by Sweetzer’s Table A, evidence, 4236, page 424. 

193 See Table L, Evidence, page 361. 

194 Judge Mc-Cunn testifies : 

The reason why the population of the lower wards of the city, including the'sixth, decreased is this : stores 
have crept in where the tenement houses were before ; in fact, the tenement houses have nearly all been pulled 
down and stores erected on their sites. 

195 The census returns exhibit the law of increase of the voters of the State, viz : 

The decade from 1825 to 1835 “covers the time when the Erie canal was finished, and when New York 
absorbed a large relative share of the westward tide of migration. Accordingly the census of 1835 shows 
an increase of voters amounting to 3 6-lOtbs per cent, per annum. The next decade, (1835 to 1845,) the 
increase of voters shown by the census of 1845 is a little less than at the rate of 2 i per cent, per annum. For 
the next decade, (1845 to 1855.) the increase shown by the census of 1855 is a little less than 2 per cent, per 
annum. For the next decade, (1855 to 1865,) the census of 1865 shows an increase in the voters of a little over 
21 per cent, per annum. 

‘ ‘A calculation of 24 per cent, per annum on the number of votes given by the census of 1835 gives 820 more 
than are shown by the census for 1845. An increase of 2 per cent, per annum on the number given in the 
census of 1845 gives us 657,494 in 1855, which is 4,673 more than is given by the census returns of 1855. Now 
if, on this number of 657,494. wo compute 24 per cent, per annum to 1865, we will have 838,513, which is 
15,117 more than is shown by the census of 1865; and, continuing the calculation on this number of 
838,543, and at the same rate, to 1868, we will avoid all question of the census of 1865, and have, as the num 
ber of voters this year, 903,018.” 

That such a calculation must surely give enough to cover the reality—that while it probably is somewhat 
too large, it is certainly not too small—is shown by these considerations. It is based on all the four census 



G4 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


In tbe counties whicli gave large democratic votes the percentage of 
votes to voters is greatly in excess of the average of the other counties, 
as may he seen by the following: 

Percentage of 

Counties. * votes to voters. 


Albany. 95 

Kings. 102 

New York. 108 

Westchester. 92 


In other counties the democratic vote was largely increased over that 
of previous years, and especially where the testimony shows the exist¬ 
ence of extensive frauds. 

In view of all the facts it is safe to estimate that the total fraudulent 
and illegal votes cast in the State of New York, at the election in Novem¬ 
ber, 1868, were not less, and probably exceeded, 50,000 votes. 


returns of 1825, 1835, 1845, and 1855. It allows for the last thirteen yeai’s the highest rate of increase shown 
by the census returns for any period of ten years in the last 33 years, and the number taken for the basis of 
this calculation in 1855 is 4,673 higher than that given by the census returns of 1855. It covers the whole time 
of the war; takes no note of any probable diminution of voters thereby; gives for 1865 more than 15,000 
excess above the census returns of that year, and continues the rate of increase on the whole at 2£ per cent, per 
annum down to the present time, which rate is, in fact, a trifle over what is shown by the census to be the 
highest rate for any period of ten yeai’S since 1835. 

If the number of qualified electors in the State this year be not more than 903,018, as we have found, 
then the number available to deposit their votes in the ballot-box cannot exceed 812.717; and, at least, the 
excess, 37,034, shown in the returns, must, necessarily, be false and fraudulent .—Senate Mis., No. 4, 3d ses¬ 
sion 40 Ik Congress. 







PART II. 

REMEDIES EOR ELECTION FRAUDS. 


CHAPTER I. 

Naturalization frauds so extensive and palpable as those practiced in 
the supreme court of the State, exercising jurisdiction in the city of New 
York, and in the superior court of the city, demand a prompt and effec¬ 
tual remedy. 

Jurisdiction in naturalization is exercised under national authority. 

Courts so reckless, regardless, or negligent of duty as these are shown 
to be ought not to be permitted to continue the exercise of powers which 
have been so grossly abused. « 

A bill is reported accordingly: 


A BILL withdrawing jurisdiction of naturalization from certain courts in New York city. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and Souse of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled , That the supreme court, the 
circuit courts, and the courts of oyer and terminer in the city and county 
of New York, and the superior court of the city of New York, shall not 
hereafter have power to admit any alien to be a citizen. 

CHAPTER II. 

NATURALIZATION. 

The investigations of the committee show conclusively that there is 
urgent necessity for a revision or amendment of the acts of Congress 
under which aliens are admitted to be citizens, commonly called “the 
naturalization laws.” 

By the Constitution, Congress has power “to establish an uniform 
rule of naturalization.” (Art 1, sec. 8.) The rule, whatever it may be, 
should be established in the most enlarged spirit of liberality, justice, 
and humanity. 

The exigencies of political parties should not determine what the rule 
should be, but the interests of civilization should always command the 
most sacred regard. 

With the exception of a few isolated instances in which descendants 
of the aboriginal inhabitants of the country have become citizens, the 
entire population of the American republic are of foreign birth or ances¬ 
try of a comparatively recent period. 

With the triumph of liberal principles in the election of Abraham 
Lincoln to the presidency, followed by the proclamation of emancipation 
and the reconstruction of the revolted States of the south on the basis 
of “equal and exact justice to all men,” a new era dawned upon the 
republic in the advanced interests of civilization and philantlirophy. 

That homogeneity so often deemed essential to unity and peace is no 
longer regarded as an indispensable element of national existence. Expe- 
H. Rej). Com. 31-5 




G6 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


rience lias bridged over apparent antagonisms, and the republic is so 
enduring in its structure and so liberal in its policy that the civilized 
inhabitants of every climate share its blessings under laws inviting them 
freely to participate in its benefits. 

The right of expatriation, so often maintained, and recently vindicated 
so ably and fully by this government, is a part of that policy. 1 

Congress, by the act of July 4, 1864, provided for the appointment of 
a Commissioner of Immigration, made provisions to enable indigent 
emigrants from foreign countries to come to and settle in the United 
States, and otherwise encouraged immigration. 2 

Some of the States have passed laws of a similar character, and sent 
agents abroad to invite immigration. 3 

All this has been done on the faith of a naturalization policy estab¬ 
lished by laws sanctioned in their general purpose by almost universal 
consent for over 60 years. 

Good faith and justice require that existing rights and facilities for 
becoming citizens should not be abridged, and as to the time of resi¬ 
dence it lias been sanctioned by treaty stipulations. Foreigners or their 
descendants have made the republic what it is, with all its material and 
moral resources. * 

Immigration adds to our productive industry, and thus enlarges all 
our resources. 

It is well that the public judgment will sanction no measure hostile to im¬ 
migration, or looking to an abridgment of the privilege to become citizens. 

The alien and sedition laws passed during the administration of John 
Adams afford an instructive lesson as to the impolicy of exposing the 
authors of any new measures to the charge of being unfriendly or too 
severe in the admission of citizens. 

1 The treaty between the United States and the King of Prussia, in the name of the North 
German Confederation, proclaimed May 27, 1868, contains these provisions: 

Article I. 

Citizens of the North German Confederation who become naturalized citizens of the United States of 
America, and shall have resided uninterruptedly within the United States five years, shall be held by the North 
German Confederation to be American citizens, and shall be treated as such. 

Reciprocally: Citizens of tbe United States of America who become naturalized citizens of the North Ger¬ 
man Confederation, and shall have resided uninterruptedly within North Germany five years, shall be held 
by the United States to be Nortli German citizens, and shall be treated as such. The declaration of an inten¬ 
tion to become a citizen of the one or the other coimtry has not for either party the effect of naturalization. 

Article II. 

A naturalized citizen of the one party on return to the territory of the other party remains liable to trial 
and punishment for an action punishable by the laws of his original cuntry and committed before his emigra¬ 
tion ; saving, always, the limitation established by the laws of his original country. 

Article IV. 

If a German naturalized in America renews his residence in North Germany, without the intent to return 
to America, he shall be held to have renounced his naturalization in the United States. 

Reciprocally: If an American naturalized in North Germany renews his residence in the United States, 
without the intent to return to North Germany, he shall be held to have renounced his naturalization in North 
Germany. The intent not to return may be held to exist when the person naturalized in the one country 
resides more than two years in the other country. 

The republican national convention at Chicago, on tbe 21st of May, 18G8, adopted as a 
part of tlieir platform the following : 

9. The doctrine of Great Britain and other European powers, that because a man is once a subject he is always 
so, must be resisted at every hazard by the United States, as a relic of feudal times, not authorized by the 
laws of nations, and at war with our national honor and independence. Naturalized citizens are entitled to 
protection in all their rights of citizenship, as tnough they were native-born; and no citizen of the United 
S'atcs, native or naturalized, must be liable to arrest and imprisonment by any foreign power for acts done or 
words spoken in this country; and if so arrested and imprisoned, it is the duty of the government to interfere 
in his behalf. 

2 13 United States Statutes at Large, 385. * 

3 In some of the States aliens, having declared their intention to become citizens, are by 
law entitled to vote. In 1846 the legislature of New York established a board of commis¬ 
sioners of emigration, still in existence. 

The following is from the platform of the National Republican Convention of May, 1808: 

11. Foreign immigration, which in the past has added so much to the wealth, development, and resources 
and increase of power to this republic, the asylum of the oppressed of all nations, should he fostered and 
encouraged by a liberal and just policy. 




ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


6Y 


No one now would think of denying to aliens the right to become 
citizens. To do so would give us a class of people disfranchised and 
under disabilities, always dangerous because not allied with or interested 
in the preservation of institutions they would justly deem inimical and 
hostile. It is only natural, as it is just, that the people should respect the 
government that gives equal political privileges to all. That govern¬ 
ment is always best in which an insult to the humblest inhabitant is an 
offence against the whole constitution. 

But while all this is true, the government, the naturalized citizen, all 
the people, have a right to insist upon a full, fair, and faithful compli¬ 
ance with the laws regulating naturalization. A government that can¬ 
not exact this is unable to command respect, and one that will not is 
faithless and false to all its citizens. 

Jefferson in his inaugural stated that naturalization should be granted 
u with restrictions, perhaps, to guard against the fraudulent usurpation 
of our flag, an abuse which iftlngs so much embarrassment and loss on 
the genuine citizen and so much danger to the nation of being involved 
in war, that no endeavor should be spared to detect and suppress it.” 

The investigations of the committee were directed to an inquiry into 
the character of the frauds practiced in the State courts of New York 
under cover of the naturalization laws. 

It is abundantly shown that during the year 1868 in New York city and 
State, and especially in October, many thousands of illegal and fraudu¬ 
lent certificates of citizenship were granted by these courts. Among the 
frauds were these: 

1. Numerous persons securing pay for their services personated aliens, 
many of whom were not entitled to naturalization, while perjured wit¬ 
nesses, often giving false or assumed names, made the requisite proof, and 
secured from corrupt or negligent courts certificates of citizenship, 
which were scattered broadcast over the city of New York, and else¬ 
where, to aliens who never appeared in court or took any oath of allegi¬ 
ance. 

2. Certificates of citizenship were secured by the same means, to ficti¬ 
tious names, to enable real voters on such names to register and vote 
repeatedly at the same election; and native-born citizens applied for and 
procured certificates of naturalization on their own or assumed names,, 
for the same purpose. 

3. Certificates of citizenship were issued by the courts without evi¬ 
dence, or the presence of the persons naturalized. 4 

4. A single judge, sitting generally only a few hours each day, naturalized 
955 applicants in one day, hearing the applications and evidence of 150 
persons at one time, complying with none of the requirements of the law, 
professing to administer an oath in a given form to all the applicants, 
and then to all the witnesses in a lot; but in fact, as to many of them, 
no oath at all, and by this means enabling fraudulent naturalizations to 
be effected in favor of persons not present and without any witnesses. 

5. In one court, by one judge, certificates of naturalization were 
granted in October, 1868, in nearly all cases on unauthorized—and con¬ 
sequently illegal—affidavits, made in open court, whereby all applicants, 
and witnesses were relieved of prosecutions for perjury. 

6. In some of the Courts the clerks, with the knowledge and sanction 
of the judge, in violation of law, heard applications and granted certifi¬ 
cates of citizenship regular on their face, but utterly void in law. 

7. Numerous persons were engaged in procuring and selling, or giving 

4 Evidence of Theodo're Allen, Jolm McClusky, Nathaniel Jarvis, George Bliss, M. R. 
Leverson, R. W. McAlpine. 




68 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK, 


to aliens and others, certificates of naturalization thus fraudulently or 
illegally procured. 

For these frauds and illegal proceedings existing laws profess to fur¬ 
nish no penalty, except only for perjury and forgery of certificates of citi¬ 
zenship; the latter of which, perhaps, is provided for in the 13th section 
•of the act 5 of Congress of March 3, 1813, though the question whether 

6 Benjamin B. Rosenberg was arrested in the city of New York, on the 21st day of Octo¬ 
ber, 1868, by United States Marshal Murray, on two charges of having feloniously uttered 
fraudulent naturalization papers. 

His examination was set down forthe 22d, heforeUnited States Commissioner Osborn. The 
prosecution was represented by United States District Attorney Courtney, James T. Brady, 
J ohn Sedgwick, and Assistant United States District Attorney Ethan Allen. For the defence, 
Messrs. Abraham K. Lawrence, Wm C. Barret, and Chas. Donohue appeared. By agree¬ 
ment the matter was postponed to October 24, when the parties reassembled, the prosecu¬ 
tion having an additional representative in ex-Judge Fullerton, and the defence in John 
Graham. 

The case was opened by District Attorney Courtne^ who called attention to the 13th sec¬ 
tion of the act of Congress of March 3, 1813, under which the prosecution of the cases was 
instituted, and the examination of witnesses for the prosecution was then proceeded with. On 
the 27th October the prosecution rested. Counsel for the defence moved to dismiss the pro¬ 
ceedings on the ground that the act of March 3, 1813, bad no application to this case, that 
the statute, being not remedial, cannot be liberally or equitably construed ; but being a crimi¬ 
nal as well as a penal statute, must be strictly construed. From the title of the act, the date of 
its passage, and the fact that at such time the United States was at war with Great Britain, coun¬ 
sel argued that it was intended solely to prevent the employment on board the vessels of 
this country of persons other than native-born, naturalized or native persons of color, and 
•that the section on which the prosecution claimed to found these proceedings was special 
in its character, and could not be directed against any other thing than thai referred to in 
the title and other provisions of the act, which was simply the employment of other persons 
.than natives, Ac., on United States vessels. 

Ex-Judge Fullerton and James T. Brady, for the prosecution, claimed the act of March 3, 
1813, to be general in its applicalion, and that the certificates of naturalization obtained from 
the accused were false, and contained a falsehood on their face, as no such persons as were 
•named therein had any existence ; that this was sufficient to stamp the papers as false and 
fraudulent, admitting the signatures of the clerk and seal of the court to be genuine. 

Upon the opening of court, on the 31st, the commissioner pronounced his opinion, concur¬ 
ring in the view taken by Justice Irwin, of the United States district court for the western 
•district of Pennsylvania, sitting as circuit judge, (Pittsburg Leg. J., 4th June, 1853,) that 
the construction of the act of 1813 is general in its application to all classes of naturalized 
•citizens, and applicable to the case in question. 

Passing to ttie question rvliether the evidence is sufficient the commissioner, after 
quoting the following authorities upon the duties and powers of courts in naturalizing 
and the effect of the record of naturalization, (act of Congress April 14, 1802; 7 Hill, 
J37; 18 Barber, 444; Spratt vs. Spratt, 4 Pet., 406; Richie vs. Pittnam, 13 Wend., 254; 

1 Seld., 263, 273, 278; 6 Cer., 176,) found that a judgment, decree, or sentence may be 
impeached by proof: First, when it is known that such judgment never existed or was 
-void ub initio; secondly , that it was fraudulent; thirdly, that it has been revoked; (11 
•St., Tr. 230, 261 ; 1 Yes , 159; Andr., 392;) and that these certificates of citizenship are 
false certificates; that the defendant caused or procured the same to be falsely made, and 
-that the onus probandi was upon him to show that they were genuine. For these reasons 
he ordered the surety to surrender the defendant to the custody of the United States marshal, 
•and commanded the marshal to keep him to await the action of the grand jury iu default of 
•$10,000 bail. 

November f 1, in the United States circuit court, before Judges Nelson and Blatchford, 
counsel for the defence moved to quash the indictment. 

Ex-J udges Pierrepont and Davies appeared as additional counsel for the prosecution. The 
district attorney moved to set aside the motion to quash, and Mr. Stoughton, for the accused, 
opened the argument. The principal questions arising under the motion he claimed to be : 
First, “Is it criminal, within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1813, to forge, utter, or 
dispose of certificates of naturalization, except for the purposes therein mentioned ; and 
second, if yea, what facts must be set forth iu the indictment to constitute a crime under the 
meaning of the 13th section of said act?” Upon the first question the learned counsel main¬ 
tained that the whole tenor of the statute was simply to prevent the employment on United 
States vessels of persons other than citizens or native-born colored people; and as to the 
second, he claimed that the act was not now in practical operation, and had been regarded 
as obsolete, with the exception of the provision as to the time necessary to constitute residence 
in the United States. But, further, that if alive, the personation by false witnesses was 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


69 


even tliat is of general application so as to cover any of these cases is 
controverted, and is now pending in the Supreme Court of the United 
States. 

It is manifest that some provision should be made to remedy every one 
of the evils known to exist, or which may be reasonably anticipated. 

There is a reason for providing penalties against State judges for 
frauds, which may not be necessary against judges of the national 
courts. 

As to the latter there is a national remedy by impeachment. 

Congress should not be asked to rely on the uncertainty of impeach¬ 
ment, under State authority, of State judges. * * * * * 6 


never contemplated by or provided against in the statute, which simply declared it a crime 
to forge or utter a copy of citizenship in order to procure for an alien employment upon United 
States vessels. For the prosecution ex-Judges Pierrepont and Davies argued that the statute 
was of general application, made to restrain frauds by certificates of citizenship. 

On the 25th Judge Davies resumed, quoting Spratt vs. Spratt, (4 Peters, 494,) which he 
maintained was against the views of counsel for the defence. 

Messrs. Graham and Stoughton followed in reply on behalf of the accused ; the only 
additional points raised being that the United States marshal was disqualified from being 
a complainant when he summoned the grand jurors ; that the act of March 3, 1813, did not 
provide for the offence of criminally using a genuine certificate ; that the indictment should 
aver upon its face the motive for or object of the crime as intended to be proven ; otherwise, 
as a fact, in this court what is to prevent an independent prosecution in the State courts, 
and the punishment of the defendant twice for the same offence? That the first four counts 
in the indictment fall for the reason that they deny that the person named in the certificate 
is a real person, and the court, therefore, cannot see that the documents are capable of doing 
harm or mischief. That the third and fourth counts set forth two distinct offences—“pass¬ 
ing” and “using a3 true”—and are therefore bad ; for if they are co-ordinate offences, involv¬ 
ing the same punishment, each count should contain one offence. And, finally, that the fifth 
count is bad, as it avers that the citizen who in the other counts is represented as a fictitious 
person is a real one, and the one for whom the certificate of naturalization was intended ; 
and, also, for the reason that it charges “ a making sale of” and a “ disposing.” 

On November 29th the court announced that it was divided in opinion on the questions 
presented, and had certified the following to the Supreme Court of the United States for its 
decision: 

First. Whether it is necessary, under the 13th section of the act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1813, entitled “An act for the regulation of seamen on board the public and pri¬ 
vate vessels of the United States,” that said indictments should aver that the certificates of 
citizenship or the evidence of citizenship therein mentioned was produced to the commander 
of a public vessel of the United States or to a collector of customs. Second, whether the 
certificates of citizenship or the evidence of citizenship mentioned in the said 13th section 
embraces any other certificate or evidence than the certified copy of the act of naturalization 
mentioned in the said section of said act, and the proofs of citizenship mentioned in the 4th 
and 6th sections of said act. Third, whether the said indictment is invalid for the reason 
that the certificate set out therein is not a certificate of citizenship as is mentioned in said 13th 
section. 

6 On the 6th of April, 1844, Benjamin C. Elliott, judge of the city court of Lafayette, was 
impeached and removed from office by the senate, the high court of impeachment of Louisi¬ 
ana, on articles of impeachment charging that he— 

I. Grossly and culpably neglected to cause the records and proceedings of the court to be kept in respect 
to all the acts and proceedings of said court under the naturalization laws of the United States. 

II. That he unlawfully and corruptly caused and permitted 1,748 certificates of naturalization to be 
issued * from the 2d of March, 1841, to the 4th of January, 1844, in fraud of the naturalization laws, &c. 

III. That he permitted his clerk to issue fraudulent certificates. 

IV. For issuing fraudulent certificates corruptly for money.— United States Senate documents , vol. 9, 
1844-’45, 2d sess. 28th Congress, Doc. No. 173. 

In that case it was said, in a report to the House: 

It further appears that nearly 400 of these certificates were issued in one day. It seems to your committee 
impossible that this could have been legally done. Twelve hundred oaths administered and 800 witnesses 
examined as to the age, the qualifications, the residence and moral character of the different persons natural¬ 
ized in open court by the judge. 

The report does not show whether the question was made as to the power of the State to 
impeach for frauds in the exercise of a jurisdiction conferred by national law. (/ Hill, N. Y.. 
Rep. 137; People vs. Sweetman, 3Parker Crim. Cases; 18 Barlow, 444.) But there can be 
no doubt of the power of a State to impeach its own officers who, exercising a national juris¬ 
diction, prove themselves unfit to perform any duty. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


70 

One of the remedial measures which lias been suggested is to with¬ 
draw the business of naturalization from the State courts. 7 


’The New York Times of February 13, 1860, contains the following: 

THE GERMANS AND THE NATURALIZATION LAWS. 

The German republican central committee held a meeting last night at its headquarters, Steuben House, 
Bowery, General Sigel presiding. After the usual routine business, a delegation from the German republicans 
of Hudson county. N. J., with the object of co-operation in national questions, was received. The sub-com¬ 
mittee, appointed to confer with a similar committee from the German Union democratic general committee 
concerning the amendment of the naturalization laws, was heard. The resolutions adopted by the joint com¬ 
mittees were : Firstly, that the importance of immigration is manifest and should be duly appreciated. 
Secondly, that naturalization should be facilitated as much as possible, and the period fixed for the attainment 
of full citizenship shortened, and should not be intrusted exclusively to the United States courts. Thirdly, 
that the action of Congress in this matter deserves the support of the foreign-horn citizens. These resolutions 
were unanimously adopted; also, that the same should be presented in a petition to Congress, that a mass 
meeting of all the German citizens in support of these steps should be called, and that the press be called upon 
to assist this movement. The action of the German republican central committee was communicated to the 
democratic committee, which adopted the above resolutions with a slight alteration. 

The committee consists of Mr. Marcus Otterburg, Mr. Andreas Willmann, Dr. Hartwig Gucke, Dr. Hermann 
Muhr, Mr. Arnold Renson, republicans; Mr. Magnus Gross, Dr. W. Schirmer, Mr. H. Schroeder, Mr. Henry 
Scipt, Mr. W. Stark, democrats. 

The number of emigrants coming to the United States from time to time from different 
countries varies very much. For many years Ireland sent a large proportion, and does yet. 
But other countries are now sending in also a tide of valuable population to add to our 
wealth, industry, and numbers. 

In 1866 the alien emigrants arriving at New York city were 233,418, of which there were 
from different countries as follows : 

Number and nativity of alien passengers arrived at the port of New York during the years 

1866 and 1867, who were liable to bonds or commutation under the acts of the New York leg¬ 
islatures of April 11, 1849, July 11, 1851, April 13, 1853, and May 14, 1867. 


Nativity. 

1866. 

1867. 

Germany. 

106.716 
68 047 

117, 591 

65 134 

Ireland... 

England. 

36,186 
4.979 

3 907 

33^ 712 

6 315 

Scotland. 

Sweden. 

4, 843 

3, 985 

3, 204 
1,372 

Switzerland. 

3, 685 
3, 246 
1,526 
1,506 
918 

France. 

Denmark. 

Holland. 

Italy. 

1 032 

Norway. 

583 

309 

Wales. 

540 

142 

Spain. 

315 

203 

214 

West Indies. 

246 

Poland... 

231 

268 

1,623 

97 

Belgium. 

157 

South America. 

155 



See annual reports of the commissioners of 
year ending December 31, 1866, and for the ye 


Nativity. 

1866. 

1867. 

Russia. 

154 

185 

Portugal. 

96 

79 

Mexico. 

56 

28 

Nova Scotia. 

40 

22 

Cauada. 

28 

42 

China. 

26 

17 

East Indies. 

15 

4 

A frica... 

15 

2 

Australia.. 

12 

44 

Central America. 

12 

7 

Turkey. 

8 

6 

Japan. 

7 

87 

Greece. 

5 

8 

Sicily____ 

1 


Total. 

233,418 

242, 731 


emigration of the State of New York for the 
ar ending December 31, 1867. 


Number and destination of passengers during the year 1866. 


States. 

January. 

| February. 

March. 

April. 

May. 

June. 

July. 

August. 

September. 

October. 

November. 

December. 

Total. 

Arkansas. 

4 

1 


1 

4 

2 


8 


5 

7 


OC> 

Alabama. 

2 

1 

1 

1 

4 

15 

10 

8 

13 

13 

22 

6 

*JAJ 

96 

Australia. 





1 


1 


1 




O 

British Columbia .. 


2 

2 

3 



1 

1 

] 

] 


1 1 

Canada . 

60 

37 

112 

112 

231 

163 

210 

301 

153 

182 

100 

80 

1 1. 
1, 74 L 

California. 

45 

35 

50 

109 

185 

149 

317 

214 

186 

175 

105 

108 

1, 678 

Connecticut. 

64 

130 

219 

427 

892 

392 

391 

330 

258 

261 

250 

97 

3j 711 

Central America... 




1 

1 


1 



O 

O 


•7 

Cuba. 

1 


2 


1 



1 



A 

O 

1 1 

Delaware. 

2 

2 

11 

16 

34 

19 

50 

11 

43 

18 

25 

7 

238 

District Columbia.. 

30 

14 

56 

77 

184 

118 

113 

86 

59 

62 

58 

33 

890 

Florida. 





4l 


41 


.1 


2 


10 





































































































ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


71 


But this is not deemed advisable. Unless national courts are substi¬ 
tuted equally accessible to applicants, the facilities for naturalization 
would be greatly abridged or rendered inconvenient and attended with 
unnecessary expense. 

It has been proposed to confer jurisdiction of naturalization on regis¬ 
ters in bankruptcy, and require them to hold terms for business in every 
county, to be paid by fees, and without compensation from the govern¬ 
ment. 

In many localities the business would not justify such officers in hold¬ 
ing terms in every county. 

These officers may be as liable to err in judgment, or become faithless 
to duty, as the judges of the State courts. 

Congress has power to control and subject to penalties State officers 
who consent to execute national laws as fully as officers created by 
national law. It will not do to withdraw all confidence from all State 
officers merely because some have been recreant to their trusts. When 
such recreancy becomes universal in State officers the only remedy will 
be to dispense with their existence. 


Number and destination of passengers during the year 1866—Continued. 


States. 

January. 

February. 

March. 

April. 

May. 

June. 

Jaly. 

August. 

September. 

October. 

November. 

December. 

Total. 

Georgia... 


5 

8 


45 

9 

40 

25 

15 

46 

23 

9 

225 

Illinois.. 

1, C07 

365 

1,124 

1,593 

3, 873 

3, 858 

4,034 

1,426 

1,113 

1, 602 

1,522 

869 

22, 386 

Iowa. 

111 

55 

384 

308 

916 

634 

684 

147 

320 

414 

383 

137 

4.493 

Indiana. 

137 

96 

124 

212 

554 

604 

418 

215 

248 

287 

190 

118 

3, 201 

Kentucky. 

44 

49 

76 

97 

245 

211 

224 

168 

173 

143 

141 

65 

1,636 

Kansas. 

25 

10 

14 

78 

61 

59 

70 

28 

24 

49 

34 

16 

468 

Louisiana. 

13 

4 

12 

20 

41 

42 

94 

49 

89 

30 

88 

68 

550 

Massachusetts. 

263 

181 

1,070 

1, 480 

2, 704 

1,300 

1,250 

902 

644 

925 

686 

469 

11,874 

Maryland. 

69 

60 

79 

240 

286 

195 

242 

150 

149 

158 

126 

64 

1,818 

Maine. 

26 

8 

38 

98 

60 

14 

17 

24 

5 

21 

7 

12 

330 

Michigan. 

97 

64 

117 

153 

677 

433 

575 

409 

372 

618 

424 

246 

4,185 

Minnesota. 

297 

64 

155 

270 

591 

657 

657 

213 

141 

202 

143 

69 

3, 459 

Missouri. 

249 

127 

273 

335 

825 

630 

356 

398 

443 

630 

477 

175 

4, 918 

Mexico 

4 

1 


1 


2 

o 


1 


2 

6 

19 

Mississippi 

2 


9 



1 

13 

3 

23 

3 


11 

65 

New Hampshire... 

11 


10 

16 

59 


4 

13 

28 

20 

28 


189 

Nova Scotia 

4 

1 


2 



6 

7 

6 

3 

9 

6 

50 

New York. 

5,613 

3,636 

6, 986 

8,781 

15, 745 

13, 035 

10, 779 

6, 686 

6,039 

8, 475 

7,615 

4,217 

97, 607 

New Jersey. 

291 

252 

569 

630 

1,775 

968 

613 

596 

529 

685 

606 

283 

7, 877 

Nebraska 

5 

2 

22 

12 

3 


19 

7 

12 

5 

23 

9 

119 

North Carolina .... 

1 

1 

2 

1 

21 

46 


52 

3 

7 

3 

3 

140 

New Brunswick 




1 

9 

7 

4 

14 

7 

6 

10 


60 

Oregon 

9 




6 

9 

2 


8 

3 

1 


38 

Rhode Island. 

94 

57 

80 

194 

652 

327 

154 

164 

156 

246 

192 

76 

2, 392 

Ohio. 

481 

375 

720 

1,081 

2,341 

1,568 

1,348 

989 

927 

1,317 

1, 094 

682 

12, 923 

Pennsylvania. 

1,284 

773 

1,381 

2,448 

4, 609 

3, 256 

2, 206 

2, 042 

1, 630 

2,214 

1,907 

1,124 

24, 874 

South Carolina .... 

3 

1 

2 

7 

10 

15 

26 

12 

49 

23 

18 

5 

171 

South America .... 





1 

5 

2 

5 

3 

4 

1 

6 

27 

Texas ...... ...... 





14 

12 


13 

21 

21 

22 

16 

124 

Tennessee. 

30 

17 

25 

122 

79 

24 

. 50 

19 

74 

56 

53 

17 

566 

Verment ... 

4 

10 

32 

14 

81 

44 

8 

6 

9 

12 

11 

7 

238 

Virginia. 

38 

18 

41 

82 

136 

156 

169 

109 

68 

80 

54 

55 

1,006 

West Indies ....... 


2 


1 

4 

2 

6 






15 

Wisconsin. 

439 

152 

392 

447 

1,802 

2,055 

1,120 

571 

438 

567 

715 

462 

9,160 

Utah 




2 

6 

1,125 

1,947 

2 





3, 082 





3 


1 






4 

Colorado 




2 


14 


10 


4 



30 

Prince Ed’ds Isl’nd. 
Idaho ........ . 








4 

1 

1 

1 


7 










1 



\ 















Totals. 

10, 861 

6, 608 

L4, 204 

19, 478 

39, 760 

32,183 

28,: 22 

16, 438 

14, 482 

19, 597 

17, 280 

9, 638 

228, 851 


























































































ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


A bill is reported in accordance with these views : 

A BILL to amend the several acts relating to naturalization. 

Sec. 1. Be it enacted , Sc., That any alien who shall have declared on 
oath or affirmation in any court authorized to admit aliens to become 
citizens of the United States that it was bona fide his intention to become 
a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and 
fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, 
and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty 
whereof such alien may at the time be a citizen or subject, shall be 
authorized to acquire, hold, own, use, and enjoy, by purchase or descent, 
any property, real or personal, and the same to dispose of, and transmit 
by inheritance in the same manner and as fully as citizens of the United 
States might or could lawfully do. 8 

Sec. 2. That every alien, before being admitted to be a citizen of the 
United States by any court having jurisdiction thereof, shall proveto the 
satisfaction of the court by at least one credible witness under oath, and 
by an oral examination in open court, the facts which are by law required 
to be proved, and of which the court must be satisfied, and in like man¬ 
ner by his own oath all said facts except that he has behaved as a person 
of good moral character, and he shall in like manner prove by his own 
oath as nearly as practicable his place of birth, age, time of arrival in 
the United States, and the place or places where he lias resided since 
his arrival in the United States, with his present residence, specifying 
the number, street, and city, town, or village, if in a city, town, or village, 
and if not such other pertinent description of the locality of his resi- 


8 In Elmondorff vs. Carmichael, 3 Littell, Ky. R., 474, decided in 1823, it is said : 

From the authorites cited, and the investigation the court has made on this subject, the following general 
rules are discovered to have existed in the laws of England, at our separation from that country : First, “ That 
an alien may take land by purchase, and is clothed with the title ; but he holds it for the use of the crown, 
and may be divested of it by an inquest of office found. This inquest, however, is absohttely necessary, be¬ 
fore the title can be taken from him.” Secondly, “ That an alien cannot take a title by descent as he can by 
purchase, and in case the heir is an alien, the title is immediately vested in the crown, and no inquest is neces¬ 
sary for that purpose, although an office of instruction may be found. ” 

There can be no doubt that the Commonwealth of Virginia, when it assumed its republican character, suc¬ 
ceeded to the rights and privileges of the crown of England, as to her own domain. And it is equally clear 
that she adopted the laws in force there at a certain period, so far as they wei*e compatible with the genius 
and spirit of the new government and were not locally inapplicable, without inquiring into the policy of the 
foregoing principles or investigating the reasons which gave them birth. We have no doubt they were also 
adopted by Virginia at the Revolution, and composed part of her code, and ought to be adjudged to exist until 
altered by the legislature. This has been held to be true in New York with regard to that State, and is so 
decided with regard to Virginia, by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Fairfax’s devisee 
vs. Hunter’s lessee, 7 Cranch, 603. It is also decided in that case that a devisee is a purchaser within the 
meaning of the rule, and can and does take the estate devised to him. 

But that a grantee from the crown, or government, would or could take an estate by patent, and hold 
it for the use of the government, is a point not so clear. There is considerable difference between him and 
the purchaser from an individual. The reasons which operate in the latter case are not as patent in favor of 
the former. Besides, many dicta in the English authorities are against it. See Bro. Abr., title Patent, 44; 7 
Viner’s Abr. title Prex-ogative,p. 78; 2 Black. Commentaries, 347, 348,[and Tucker’s note; Jacobs’s Law Dic- 
tionary, under Gi'ants from the Crown. There is, however, opposed to these authorities, the case of Craig et 
al. vs. Redf'ord, 3 Wheat. 594, in the Supreme Court of the United States, precisely in point with the present. 
Btxt this case is decided on the authority of the case of a devisee in Fairfax’s devisee vs. Hunter’s lessee, 7 
Cranch, 603, supposing the case of the devisee and that of a grantee from the State to be pi-ecisely parallel. 
Besides, the question does not appear in that court to have undergone the same minute investigation of author¬ 
ity, the mature deliberation, and the applicatibn of reason which usually charactei’ize the decisions of that 
enlightened tribunal. 

In White vs. White, 2 Metcalfe’s Kentucky Reports, it was said, in 1859: 

An alien can take lands by pui’chase, though not by descent, at common law; or, in other words, he can take 
by act of the party, but not by the act of the law. Lands acquired by purchase he can hold until divested of 
the title by inquest of office. (Elmondorf vs. Carmichael, 3 Littell, 474.) The consequence of this rule is that 
if he be naturalized befoi'e office found, his xit.e as purchaser becomes valid by relation , and it cannot there¬ 
after be divested. This doctrine, however, it es not apply to lands claimed by descent. Not being capable 
of taking by descent, he has no title to be confirmed by relation, and his subsequent naturalization cannot 
operate to invest him with the title which in the mean time vested elsewhei’e. 

An alien who has made his declaration of intention to become a citizen is not thereby 
rendered capable of taking land by descent. (White vs. White, 2 Metcalfe’s Kentucky 
Reports, 191; Hunt vs. Warnicke, Hardin Reports, Cl. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


73 


dence as will identify the same; and the witness and applicant shall by 
their oaths prove that they are the identical persons they respectively 
purport and represent themselves to be, and they shall each take and 
subscribe an oath stating all said facts so required to be proved: Pro¬ 
vided , That the declaration required by the first condition of the act 
approved April 14, 1802, u to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, 
and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject,” shall not be 
required to be proved by the oath of the applicant or witness, but shall 
be proved by the record or certified copy thereof, and the person apply¬ 
ing to be admitted a citizen shall prove by his own oath that he is the 
identical person who made said declaration and who is named and 
referred to therein. 

And every witness shall in every case state on oath as aforesaid his 
residence in the same manner required of applicants to be admitted cit¬ 
izens. 

No court or judge shall entertain the application of more than one 
person to be admitted to be a citizen at the same time, or receive evidence 
in support thereof. 

And in every case where an alien is admitted to be a citizen, the court or 
judge so admitting him shall make an order accordingly, written or 
printed, attested by the signature of the judge and clerk of the court, or a 
lawful deputy, in open court, which signing shall be after the order is 
lyade by the court or judge, and all said proceedings shall be recorded 
by the clerk of said court, which record shall be signed by the judge and 
attested by the clerk or his deputy in open court; but it shall be 
a sufficient record to preserve among the files or rolls of said court said 
original proceedings, oaths so subscribed, and order attested by the sig¬ 
nature of the judge and clerk on one sheet of paper, which proceedings 
may be partly printed and partly written. 

And any person who has, or hereafter shall have, lawfully u renounced 
his naturalization in the United States,” may again be admitted to be a 
citizen on the same terms, conditions, and subject to the same limitations 
provided in this act and the acts hereby amended. 9 

And the court, before admitting any alien to be a citizen, shall be sat¬ 
isfied by competent evidence of all the facts so required to be proved. 
The clerk of the court admitting any alien to be a citizen, or his lawful 
deputy, shall furnish to the applicant in person , at the time he may he 
admitted to become a citizen , a certificate showing that said applicant was 
admitted by said court to be a citizen, and the date thereof, which shall 
be under the seal of the court, attested by the clerk or his lawful deputy, 
and signedby a judgeof said court before whom the proof was made, which 
signing shall be after the order in such case is made by the court or judge. 
And in case of the loss of such certificate a duplicate certificate may be 
granted, on proof by affidavit of the person so admitted to be a citizen 
of such loss, of his residence described as hereinbefore required, and 
that he is the identical person to whom the original was issued. When¬ 
ever a duplicate shall be required by any other person than the person 
admitted to be a citizen, the certificate shall show that fact, and shall 
not be evidence to entitle any person to vote except the children of such 
person so admitted, in cas^s where such children become citizens entitled 
to vote by reason of their parent being admitted to become a citizen. 

In any court in which the duties of judge and clerk are or may be law¬ 
fully performed by the same person such judge and clerk may make and 
attest all orders, records, and certificates herein required. 

9 See Article IY of the treaty of May 27, 1868, between the United States and the King of 
Prussia. 





74 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


Sec. 3. In all cases where any alien is admitted to he a citizen in any 
court not in the county of or nearest to the place of his residence, the rea¬ 
son why the application so to be admitted is not made in such court in or 
nearest to the county of the applicant’s residence shall be shown by the 
oath of the applicant, to be reduced to writing and made part of the 
record; and a certified copy of the whole record and proceedings in such 
case shall forthwith be transmitted by the clerk of the court to the 
highest court of record of or in the county of such applicant’s residence, 
and if there be no such court, then to the highest court of record near¬ 
est the residence of such applicant; all of which shall be shown by the 
oath of the applicant or other satisfactory evidence; and the clerk of 
the court to which such record and proceedings are transmitted shall 
file and preserve the same, and make a record of the name of the appli¬ 
cant and witnesses in the same manner required as to aliens admitted to 
be citizens in such court, together with the name of the court and the 
place where it was held. 

Sec. 4. In all cases where any oath, affirmation, or affidavit shall be made 
or taken under or by virtue of this act or any of the acts hereby amended, 
and any person or persons shall, taking or making such oath, affirmation, 
or affidavit, knowingly swear or affirm falsely, the same shall be deemed 
and taken to be perjury, and the person or persons guilty thereof shall 
upon conviction thereof be liable to the punishment prescribed by the 
laws of the United States for perjury. 

Sec. 5. That if any person applying to be admitted a citizen, or appear¬ 
ing as a witness for any such person, shall, knowingly, 1st, personate any 
other person than himself; or, 2d, falsely appear in the name of a deceased 
person, or in an assumed or fictitious name; or if any citizen born in 
the United States shall make application to any court to be admitted a 
citizen ; 10 or if any judge or judges, holding or exercising the duties of 
such office under State authority; or if any clerk, or protlionotary of 
any court, deputy, assistant, or person performing the duties of such 
clerk, protlionotary, deputy, or assistant, shall knowingly, 1st, admit 
any alien or other person to be a citizen, guilty as hereinabove specified; 
or, 2d, make, sign, attest, or deliver to any such alien or person, or any 
person for him, any order, record, or certificate admitting, or purporting 
to admit, such alien or person to be a citizen; or, 3d, make, sign, or 
attest any order purporting to admit a person to be a citizen, but 
to, or in a fictitious or falsely assumed name, or in the name of a per¬ 
son not having made application and proof as herein required; or shall 
make, sign, attest, or deliver any certificate purporting to show that a- 
person was admitted to be a citizen when the name purporting to be the 
name of such person is fictitious, or falsely assumed, or that of a person 
who lia s not made application and proof as herein required; or, if any per¬ 
son shall, 1st, falsely make, forge, or counterfeit any oath, affirmation, 
affidavit, certificate, order, record, signature, or other instrument, paper, 
or proceeding herein authorized or required, or authorized or required 
by any of the acts hereby amended; or, 2d, shall utter, sell, dispose of, 
or use as true or genuine, or for any unlawful purpose, any false, forged, 
or counterfeit oath, affirmation, affidavit, certificate, order, record, sig¬ 
nature, instrument, paper, or proceeding, as aforesaid; or, 3d, sell or dis¬ 
pose of to any person other than the person for whom it was originally 
issued, any certificate of citizenship, or certificate showing any person 
to be admitted a citizen; or if any person shall in any manner use for the 
purpose of registering as a voter, or as evidence of a right to vote or 


J0 This has been done to enable citizens to register and vote more than once. Evidence, 3643. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


75 


otherwise, unlawfully, any order, certificate of citizenship, or certificate 
showing such person to be admitted to be a citizen, whether heretofore 
or hereafter issued, or made, knowing that such order or certificate has 
been unlawfully issued or made ; or, if any person shall unlawfully use, 
or attempt to use any such order or certificate, issued to or in the name 
of any other person, or in a fictitious name, or the name of a deceased 
person; or, 4th, if any such judge, clerk, deputy, or other person shall in 
any respect violate any of the provisions of this act, or any of the acts 
hereby amended, or refuse to comply therewith ; or if any person who has 
been or may be admitted to be a citizen shall, on oath or affirmation, or 
by affidavit knowingly deny that he has been so admitted, or shall con¬ 
ceal or deny such fact with intent to evade or avoid any duty or liability 
imposed or required by law, every person so offending shall be deemed and 
adjudged guilty of felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be sentenced 
to be imprisoned and kept at hard labor for a period not less than one 
nor more than five years, or be fined in a sum not less than $500 nor 
more than $1,000, or both such punishments may be imposed in the dis¬ 
cretion of the court. And every person who shall aid or abet any per¬ 
son in the commission of any such felony, or attempt to do any act 
hereby made felony, or counsel, advise, or procure, or attempt to procure 
the commission thereof, shall be liable to indictment and punishment in 
the same manner and to the same extent as the principal party guilty of 
such felony. 

Sec. 0 . The clerk of any court shall be entitled to charge and receive 75 
cents and no more from each person making application to such court to be 
admitted a citizen, for all services about such application, including a cer¬ 
tificate that such applicant is admitted to be a citizen, which certificate 
shall be under the seal of the court, and signed by the judge and clerk 
of said court. And such clerk shall, within three days after any alien is 
admitted to be a citizen, record in a book the name and residence of 
each person so admitted, and of the witness or witnesses in each case, 
with the date of the order admitting him; which names of persons so 
admitted shall be recorded in alphabetical order with consecutive num¬ 
bers affixed opposite each name, and which number shall also be placed 
on the certificate, showing such person to be admitted to be a citizen; 
and on failure to perform any of said duties every clerk so offending pur¬ 
posely shall in each case be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and be liable 
to indictment and punishment by a fine not exceeding $500. Said record, 
and the files, rolls, and records relating to naturalization, shall be kept 
in the office of the clerk of the court, and shall at all reasonable times 
be open to the inspection of the attorneys of the court and officers 
charged with the duty of conducting elections. 

Sec. 7. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General of the United States 
to prescribe suitable forms for all proceedings under this act, and, on ap¬ 
plication, to furnish to each judge and clerk of every court authorized 
to admit aliens to be citizens a copy thereof. 

Sec. 8 . In case any person has been admitted by any competent court to 
be a citizen, and has lost or never received a certificate thereof, and it shall 
be impracticable to procure such certificate in consequence of the loss 
or destruction of the records of the court admitting him to be a citizen, 
or for any other cause, or in case any person holds such certificate which 
is illegal in form or otherwise, he may surrender the same to any court 
having jurisdiction to admit aliens to become citizens; and in all such 
cases, when the facts shall be made to appear to the court by the oath or 
affidavit of any such person, or other satisfactory evidence, to be reduced 
to writing and filed and kept in such court, the court may again admit 
such person to be a citizen in the manner herein prescribed. 


76 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


Sec. 9. That any court having jurisdiction may, on the application of any 
alien who has resided in the United States four years and in the State or 
Territory where the application is made six months, entertain the applica¬ 
tion of any alien to be admitted a citizen, receive the evidence, and make 
an order admitting* such alien to be a citizen, and issue a certificate accord¬ 
ingly; but no such order or certificate shall be operative to admit any 
alien to be a citizen until six months after the date of such order: 11 Pro¬ 
vided, That any alien of the age of 21 years and upwards who has 
enlisted or shall enlist in the armies of the United States or in the naval 
service of the United States, either the regular or the volunteer forces, 
and has been or shall be honorably discharged, may be admitted to be¬ 
come a citizen of the United States upon his petition, without any 
previous declaration of his intention to become a citizen; and he shall 
not be required to prove more than one year’s residence within the 
United States previous to his application to become such citizen; and 
the court admitting such alien shall, in addition to such proof of resi¬ 
dence and good moral character As is now required by law, be satisfied 
by competent proof and by the affidavit of such person that he has been 
honorably discharged from the service of the United States as aforesaid, 
and in such cases the order of the court admitting such alien to be a 
citizen, and the certificate thereof, shall be operative immediately. 

Sec. 10. That in addition to the other modes provided by which aliens 
may be admitted to be citizens, any alien may be admitted to be a citi¬ 
zen of the United States in the mode and on the conditions following: 
Such alien shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare 
on oath or affirmation before a circuit or district court of the United 
States that he does in good faith desire to become a citizen of the 
United States; that he w T ill support the Constitution of the United 
States, and that he is attached to the principles thereof, and well dis¬ 
posed to the good order and preservation of the same; and that he does 
absolutely and entirely forever renounce and abjure all allegiance and 
fidelity t6 every foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty what¬ 
ever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sover¬ 
eignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject. In case he shall 
have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility 
in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall make an express 
renunciation of his title or order of nobility. And if known to the 
applicant he shall also state the names of his parents, and date and 
place of his birth, naming the country, state, department, duchy, county, 
commune, parish, or other municipality, the date of his leaving his 
native country, and the date and manner of his arrival in the United 
States; and shall also give a particular description of himself sufficient 
to identify him, and embracing the following particulars, viz: name, 
age, occupation or business, residence, (and if in a place where streets 
are named and buildings numbered, shall state the street and number,) 
height, complexion, color of hair, color of eyes, and any other promi¬ 
nent distinguishing mark or feature which he may possess, all of which 
shall be verified by the oath of the applicant, duly subscribed by him. 
And on proof being made to the satisfaction of the court, by oath duly 
made and subscribed in open court, that the applicant is of good moral 
character, the court shall, if satisfied that he has complied with the 
conditions in this section required, make an order, duly signed by a judge 
of the court and by the clerk or his deputy, that such applicant is 

11 The New York courts mainly ceased naturalizing October 23. The constitution of that 
State provides that a person must be “« citizen ten days,” &c., before he can vote.—Arti¬ 
cle 2, section 1. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


77 


admitted to be a citizen from and after four years and six months from 
the date thereof, which order shall have effect accordingly. And the 
clerk of such court shall give to the applicant in person a certificate 
under the seal of the court, duly attested by a judge and the clerk or 
deputy clerk of such court, which shall show such order, and also state 
as fully as the same are shown by the oath of the applicant the names of 
his parents, date and place of his birth, the date of leaving his native 
country, the date and manner of his arrival in the United States, and 
the description of the applicant. All certificates shall be numbered, the 
papers and proceedings in each case shall be kept on file in such court, 
and a record shall be made in each case bearing a number and date cor¬ 
responding with that affixed to the certificate, giving in appropriate col¬ 
umns the names of all aliens so admitted to be citizens, arranged in alpha¬ 
betical order, the name of the witness or witnesses in each case, the place of 
birth of each alien so admitted, the country of which he is a native, with 
a description of such alien. The Secretary of State of the United States 
shall supply the clerk of each court with necessary blank forms of cer¬ 
tificates to be furnished to aliens, admitted in pursuance of this section, 
so engraved and printed as to prevent the imitation or counterfeiting 
thereof as far as practicable. The provisions of this act defining and 
prescribing perjury, felonies, and misdemeanors, shall extend to persons 
applying to be admitted to be citizens under this section, to witnesses, 
clerks, deputy clerks, persons performing the duties thereof, and all per¬ 
sons guilty of perjury, or any felony or misdemeanor as defined in this 
act. 


Chapter III. 

ONE DAY THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES FOR ELECTION OF REPRE¬ 
SENTATIVES IN CONGRESS. 

The committee do not deem it necessary to enter into an extended 
argument to prove that it is advisable to elect representatives in Con¬ 
gress on the same day throughout the United States. By the Constitu¬ 
tion “ Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors” of 
President and Vice-President. 

Congress has provided 12 “that the electors of President and Vice-Presi¬ 
dent shall be appointed in each State on the Tuesday next after the first 
Monday in the month of November of the year in which they are to be 
appointed.” Previous experience had demonstrated the necessity of this, 
and time has proved its wisdom. 

Substantially the same reasons exist for requiring that representatives 
in Congress should be elected on the same day throughout the United 
States. 

Under such a regulation voters cannot vote in different States in the 
same year for representatives, as they have often done. 13 It is a part of 
our current history that systematic organizations and bodies of men have 
gone from city to city in different States to vote in the same year for 
representatives in Congress. 

The motive for and means of importing voters into States where political 
parties are equally balanced or party majorities are doubtful will, in a 
great measure, be removed by such a law. 

No one would now urge the expediency of electing representatives in 
different districts of the same State on different days, because it would 

13 Act of January 23, 1845. 5 Stat. at Large, 721. 

13 See remarks of Judge Kelley, of Pennsylvania, in House of Representatives, Feb. 5,1869. 



78 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


open a wide door to the fraudulent importation of voters. Yet in adjoin¬ 
ing districts of different States the same evil is encountered. 

If New Jersey and New York elected representatives on different days 
a portion of the migratory population of the border cities of these States 
would have the amplest fields for undetected fraud. And this is but an 
example of wdiat may and does exist elsewhere. 

It would seem equally clear that in the years when electors of Presi¬ 
dent and Vice-President are by law required to be elected the elec¬ 
tion for representatives in Congress should take place on the same day 
with that of the presidential electors. By this means the loss of time 
to all the voters involved in two elections would be reduced one-half, and 
generally the same officers conducting both elections could perform the 
duties of both on the same day and with only the expenses of one. 

In a purely economical view this is worthy of attention, especially 
when this plan is attended with other advantages and no evils. 

As Congress has power to “alter” State regulations prescribing 
“ the times, places, and manner of holding elections for # 
representatives,” 14 and as the law of Congress will become “ the supreme 15 
law of the land” on this subject, it will or may ex proprio vigore operate 
upon all State laws, regulations, officers, and citizens, and no alteration 
by State authority of State laws or regulations will be necessary. 

The elections for representatives in Congress should be held so as to 
provide against unavoidable vacancies. 16 A bill is reported in accordance 
with these views. 

A BILL prescribing the time of electing representatives in Congress. 

Be it enacted , d&c., That the members of the House of Representatives 
and delegates from the Territories for the next and every succeeding 
Congress shall be chosen by the people of the several States and Terri¬ 
tories on the same day in each State and Territory, as follows: on the 
second Tuesday of October in each year when such members and dele¬ 
gates are required to be elected, except that in the years when electors 
of President and Vice-President are by law to be appointed the election 
for members of the House of Representatives and delegates shall be held 
on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November: 
Provided , That in case any vacancy or vacancies may happen in the 
representation from any State or Territory, or when an election shall 
have been held without resulting in the choice of a member or delegate, 
in all such cases the vacancy shall be filled by an election held at such 
time as is or may be provided by law in the State or Territory where 
such vacancy may happen. And all laws or regulations prescribed in 
any State are hereby altered to conform to the provisions of this act. 
And all officers or persons authorized or required to perform any duty 
in relation to such elections shall conform to the requirements of this act. 
And members of the House of Representatives from each State and 
delegates from the Territories shall be elected in the year 1S70, and 
biennially thereafter, so that all the members of the House of Representa¬ 
tives and delegates from the Territories to which such States and Terri¬ 
tories are or may be respectively entitled shall be elected at the last 
general election preceding the time when the terms of such representa¬ 
tives and delegates will commence. 

14 Constitution, article 1, section 4. 15 Constitution, article 5. 

16 Story says, in reference to the times of elections under State regulations, that— 

The times of elections [in different States] are quite as various [as the mode thereof,] sometimes before 
and sometimes after the regular period at which the office becomes vacant. * * This * * has been pro¬ 
ductive of some inconveniences to the public service, * * for it has sometimes occurred that at an extra 
8 ession a whole State has been deprived of its vote, and at the regular sessions some districts have failed of 
eing represented upon questions vital to their interests. —1 Com. on Constitution. See 826. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


79 


Chapter IV. 

THE PREVENTION OF FRAUDS IN THE ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES 
IN CONGRESS AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS. 

No argument is necessary to prove that the right of suffrage should 
u be guarded, protected, and secured against force and fraud.” 17 

The history of election frauds proves that in some portions of the 
Union at least State laws are inadequate in their structure and mode of 
administration to accomplish these results. 

If there could have been a free and honest exercise of the elective 
franchise in the southern States of the Union, in which the question of 
secession was submitted to the decision of the voters, it could not have 
prevailed in more than one or two States. 

It is a fact, attested by universal experience, too, that men stand in 
greater awe and dread of penalties enforced in the national courts than 
in State tribunals. 

In exciting political contests, where frauds are greatest, the possibility 
of punishment is least in the local courts. The men and the influences 
which can perpetrate the frauds can screen the guilty from punishment. 
The officers of justice are paralyzed in their efforts, and juries selected 
from the immediate locality of the frauds are too often participants in 
them or eager to screen the guilty. 18 

In the national courts, jurors are selected from the entire district, and 
therefore furnish the amplest possible guarantee against sympathy with 
fraud or prejudice which might lead to inconsiderate convictions. 

The fact disclosed by the investigations of the committee that more 
than 25,000 fraudulent votes were cast in New York city in November, and 
that the guilty parties who cast them are at large without fear of punish¬ 
ment, proves that something must be done to prevent these frauds, or elec¬ 
tions will soon degenerate into a mockery and a sham. A government 
having the power to prevent them would be no less criminal than their 
perpetrators, if it could look on with indifference, or without alarm, 
and not exert all its energies to avoid their recurrence. 

There can be no doubt of the constitutional power of Congress to pro¬ 
scribe penalties to avert the national calamity and disgrace involved in 
these monstrous frauds. 

By the Constitution Congress has ample power to u maize ” “ regulations ” 
prescribing “the times, places, and manner of holding elections for sen¬ 
ators and representatives” in Congress. 19 

Congress is thus invested with all the powers now exercised by the 
States in relation to these elections, and can prescribe election districts, 
provide for election officers, the mode of announcing, authenticating, and 
declaring the result, and prescribe offences for officers, voters, and 
others—in all respects affecting or connected with such elections. The 

17 Mr. Webster, in regard to the right of suffrage, lays down “ two great principles of the 
American system: I. The right of suffrage shall be guarded, protected, and secured against 
force and against fraud. 2. Its exercise shall be prescribed by previous law,” &c.—6 Web¬ 
ster's Works , 224. 

18 Judge White’s evidence, 4779. 

19 Art. 1, sec. 4. Under the more limited power to establish post offices and post roads, 
Congress has made a penal code for offences relative to the mail service. 

Mr. Madison said, in the convention, referring to article 1, section 4: 

These are words of great latitude. * * * Whether the voters should vote by ballot, or viva voce; should 
assemble at this place or that place; should be divided into districts, or all meet at one place; should all vote 
for all the representatives, or all in a district vote for a number allotted to the district—these and many other 
points * * * might materially affect the appointments.—3 Madison Papers, 1280. 



80 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


Constitution “ authorizes Congress to do supremely whatever the State 
legislatures may do provisionally on any part of the subject .” 20 

But unless the necessity should be more general than now appears, it 
is not deemed advisable for Congress to exert its whole power in this 
respect. If great frauds continue in any one or more cities, it may 
become necessary for Congress to intervene, by providing for election 
officers and a mode of conducting elections there. 

But as this would multiply officers, the committee deem it advisable 
to adopt the election officers under State authority, declare them national 
officers for all purposes of national elections, and provide adequate pen¬ 
alties, to be enforced in the national courts, to guard, protect, and secure 
the elective franchise against force and fraud. 

The Constitution fully sanctions this mode. In the absence of all 
regulations on this subject by Congress, the Constitution declares that 
“the times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and 
representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature 
* thereof.” But Congress is authorized to “ alter such regulations.” 

In doing this Congress may adopt officers provided under State 
authority and “make” all other regulations which States could do, and 
enforce them in the national courts, or by such agencies as may be pre¬ 
scribed. 

“Whatever c regulations 7 the State legislature may make regarding 
the whole subject, Congress may 1 alter .’” 21 

The principle has even been carried further. In those cases where an 
exclusive power is reserved to Congress State officers may be authorized 
by Congress to execute the powers, and such officers and even citizens 
violating the national law on that subject may be made amenable to 
national penalties enforced in the national courts . 22 

If, then, Congress may employ State tribunals to execute an exclusively 
national power, and subject to penalties all who in such tribunals violate 
national laws a fortiori , citizens and officers directly amenable to national 

20 Farrar’s Manual of Const., p. 238, sec. 242. 

21 Farrar’s Manual, 246, sec. 252. 

32 The power of naturalization is exclusively confided to Congress and the national govern¬ 
ment. 

The State courts, authorized by act of Congress to naturalize foreigners, have power to 
do so.— Morgan vs. Dudley , 18 B. Monroe, 721. 

In People vs. Sweetmau, 3 Parker Crim. Cases, 373, Pratt, J., referring to naturalization in 
State courts, said: 

The preponderance of authority * seems to be against the power of Congress to confer such jurisdiction. 
1 VVhear., 336; 5 Id.,49; Serg. Const. L., ch. 27; 17 Johns,, 15; Virg. Cases, 321; 7 Conn., 239 ; 2 Wheat., 269; 
Martin vs. Hunter, 1 Wheat., 330. 

There is another class of cases in which duties judicial * have been conferred on * State courts, which 
it is held they are not bound to discharge, but may or may not discharge them, at their option. Prigg vs. 
Com., 16 Peters, 531. 

The naturalization laws confer powers upon the State courts, * and in entertaining them they are exclu¬ 
sively under the laws of the United States, and should be deemed quoad hoc courts of the United States. [The 
act of Congress of April 14, 1892, sec. 2, declares the State courts to be “ district courts” of the United States for 
naturalization purposes.] The crime, (perjury,) therefore, with which the prisoner was charged was * a 
crime against the laws and sovereignty of the United States, and not against the laws and sovereignty of the 
State. 

Bacon, J., said: 

A State court has no jurisdiction of criminal offences against the United States. U. S. vs. Lathrop, 17 Johns 

R., 4. 

And it was held that perjury in a naturalization proceeding in a State court was “punish¬ 
able in the United States courts and not in the State courts.” 1 Kent’s Com., 401. 

It is so held in 2 Bishop, Crim. Law, sec. 987 (867). State vs. Adams, 4 Blackford, 146. 
State vs. Pike, 15 N. H., 83. United States vs. Bailey, 9 Peters, 238. United States vs. 
Winchester, 2 McLean, 135. Rump as. Com., 6 Casey, 475. 

The act ot Congress of 25th February, 1865, made it a penal offence for any officer or per¬ 
son in the military service to intimidate or prevent any qualified voter at any general or 
special election in any State from freely exercising the right of suffrage. (13 Stat., 437.) Con¬ 
gress could as well punish any citizen for a like offence. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


81 


authority, exercising functions, performing duties, or enjoying privileges 
directly under the sanction of the supreme government, may be punished 
for any abuse of their functions, violations of duty, or perversion of 
privileges. 

On this subject it is unnecessary to call in the aid of the fourteenth 
amendment to the Constitution, the “general welfare ’’ power of the Con¬ 
stitution, or the inherent right of the government to exercise the powers 
necessary for self-preservation. 

The power to punish frauds in choosing presidential electors, by 
the voters of the States, is essential to the national existence, and 
inheres in the supreme government. By the Constitution, a Presi¬ 
dent and Vice-President are to be chosen for the term of four years, 
by electors appointed in each State in such manner as the legisla¬ 
ture may direct. The mode directed by the legislatures now is by 
the qualified voters, by general ticket, in each State. When the 
mode is thus prescribed the Constitution enjoins upon each State in that 
mode to choose the electors: “ Each State shall appoint in such man¬ 
ner,” says the Constitution. If the electors are chosen by fraudulent 
votes the duty imposed by the Constitution is not complied with, and 
Congress may not only regulate and provide for this, but may devise a 
mode of ascertaining what the actual result of an election has been. The 
only inquiry, therefore, is, when the Constitution commands that the qual¬ 
ified voters of a State shall perform a given duty in a mode prescribed by 
State law, can Congress protect the citizens of the United States in 
the performance of that duty, punish those who would prevent it, and 
employ the means essential to accomplish the end and secure the 
national preservation ? Undoubtedly all this may be done. Congress 
has done more than this. Hot only as to the election of national, but 
<i f State officers, the act of February 25, 1865, made it a penal offence 
“ by force, threat, menace, intimidation, or otherwise to prevent * any 
qualified voter of any State # from freely exercising the right of 
suffrage.” 

The Constitution declares that “the members of the several State 
legislatures and all executive and judicial officers of * * the several 

States shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitu¬ 
tion.”— Art. 6. 

The first act passed by Congress was “an act to regulate the time and 
manner of administering” these oaths. 23 

The fugitive slave law was an instance in which the Supreme Court 
held that Congress had power to enforce duties in States prescribed by 
the Constitution. 

It is the “right” of the national government to have presidential elect¬ 
ors chosen according to law. 

The Supreme Court has said that “the national government, in the 

23 Farrar’s Manual, 185, 187, 191, 294. The bill as originally reported by a committee, of 
which Mr. Madison was a member, contained a penal clause, which was subsequently 
omitted, not because it was unconstitutional, but upon the mistaken ground that the oath 
was a necessary qualification for office, “the omission of which would render void all official 
acts.” On the discussion of the bill it was objected that there was “no provision for empow¬ 
ering the government ” to enact the law. This was conclusively answered by Mr. Lawrence, 
of New York, who said: 

Congress have this power. It is declared by the Constitution that its ordinances shall be the supreme law 
of the land. If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, every part of it must partake of this suprem¬ 
acy ; consequently every general declaration it contains is the supreme law. But then these general 
declarations cannot be carried into effect without particular regulations adapted to the circumstances; these 
particular regulations are to be made by Congress, who, by the Constitution, have power to make all laws 
necessary or proper to carry the declarations of the Constitution into effect. The Constitution likewise 
declares that the members of the State legislatures, and all officers, executive and judicial, shall take an oath 
to support the Constitution. This declaration is general, and it lies with the supreme legislature to detail 
and regulate it. 

H. Bep. Com 31-6 




82 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


absence of all positive provisions to the contrary, is bound, through its 
proper departments, legislative, judicial, or executive, to carry into effect 
all the rights and duties imposed upon it by the Constitution. 77 24 

The right of suffrage is one of the “privileges of citizens 77 placed 
under the protecting care of the government by the 14th article of the 
amendment to the Constitution, and the enjoyment of which Congress 
may u enforce by appropriate legislation. 77 25 

It is not necessary, therefore, to resort to the power which Congress 
has to “ make laws to perfect the Union, establish justice, * and promote 
the general welfare; 7726 or to that inherent power of self-preservation 
which this and every government necessarily has. 

The committee report a bill in accordance with these views. 

Section 1. Be it enacted , (he., That if at any election for representa¬ 
tive in the Congress of the United States or for electors of Presi¬ 
dent and Vice-President, or delegate in Congress from any Territory, 
any person shall knowingly, 1st, personate and falsely assume to vote 
in the name of any other person, whether such other person shall 
then be living or dead, or if the name of the said other person be the 
name of a fictitious person; 27 or, 2d, vote more than once at the same 
election for any candidate for the same office; or, 3d, vote at a place 
where he may not be lawfully entitled to vote; or, 4th, without having 
a lawful right to vote; or, 5th, falsely register as a voter; or, 6th, 
do any unlawful act to secure a right or an opportunity to vote for him¬ 
self or other person; or, 7th, shall by force, threat, menace, intimidation, 
bribery, reward, or offer, or promise thereof, or otherwise unlawfully 
prevent any qualified voter of any State of the United States of America, 

24 Prigg vs. Pa., 16 Peters, 636. 

Mr. Madison said : “ The powers of the new government will act on the States in their 
collective characters.”— Federalist, No. 40. See 2 Elliot , 362, l Wheaton, 304. 

25 Ch. J. Taney, in reference to Art. IV., says : “ These privileges and immunities * are 
placed under the guardianship of the general government.”—16 Peters, 636; Farrar's Manual, 
184, 198. 

“The language of the Constit on is imperative on these States as to the performance of 
many duties. It is imperative on the States to make laws, &c. The legislatures of the 
States are, in some respects, under the control of Congress; and, in every case, are under 
the Constitution bound by the paramount authority of the United States.” —Martin vs. Hun¬ 
ter, 1 Wheaton R., 304.) 

Madison, in the Virginia convention, said: 

Some States might regulate the elections on the principle of equality, and others might regulate them other¬ 
wise. * * * * Should the people of any State, by any means, be deprived of the right of suf¬ 
frage, it was judged proper that it should be remedied by the general government. * * * * 3 Elliott’s 

Debates, 347. 

In the Dred Scott case Chief Justice Taney said: 

There is not, it is believed, to be found in the theories of writers on government, or in any actual experi¬ 
ment heretofore tried, an exposition of the term citizen which has not been considered as conferring the actual 
possession and enjoyment or the perfect right of acquisition and enjoyment of an entire equality of privileges, 
civil and political.— 19 Howard, 476. 

And see Judge Kelley’s speech in House of Representatives, February 27, 1866, and Gov 
ernor Boutwell’s speech, January, 1869. 

The civil rights act of April 9, 1866, (14 Statutes at Large, 27,) was justified upon the 
principles of the Constitution, as the discussions on it show. Chief Justice Marshall has 
said that when Congress is intrusted with a power it may select the means for its execution. 

On the 5th of February, 1869, Mr. Sumner introduced in the Senate a bill making it a 
penal offence “ to deter any citizen from the exercise or enjoyment of the rights of citizen¬ 
ship,” &c., or for “any person engaged in preparing a register of voters, or in holding or 
conducting an election, to wilfully refuse to register the name, or to receive, count, return, or 
otherwise give the proper legal effect to the vote of any citizen,” &c. It is just as compe¬ 
tent to protect citizens in the enjoyment of their political as their “civil rights.”—See speech 
of Hon. Samuel Shellabarger, July 25, 1866, in House of Representatives, (Globe, 1855-’56, 
Appendix, p. 293, vol. 60,) on House bill 437, “To declare and protect the privileges and 
immunities of citizens of the United States in the several States.” 

26 Farrar’s Manual, 181,1, 31,70, 118,126,291, 312,426,148,282,323. 

27 See sec 83, Stat. 6 Victoria, c. 18. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


83 


or of any Territory thereof, from freely exercising the right of suffrage, 
or shall by any such means induce any voter to refuse to exercise such 
right; or, 8th, compel or induce, by any such means or otherwise, 
any officer of an election in any such State or Territory to receive a 
vote from a person not legally qualified or entitled to vote; or, 9th, in¬ 
terfere in any manner with any officer of said elections in the discharge 
of his duties; 28 or, 10th, by any of such means or otherwise induce 
any officer of an election, or officer whose duty it is to ascertain, announce, 
or declare the result of any such election, or give or make any certificate, 
document, or evidence in relation thereto, to violate or refuse to comply 
witli his duty or any law regulating the same, or if any such officer shall 
neglect or refuse to perform any duty required of him by law, or violate 
any duty imposed by law, or do any act unauthorized by law relating to 
or affecting any such election or the result thereof; or, 11th, if any per¬ 
son shall aid, counsel, procure, or advise any such voter, person, or 
officer to do any act hereby made a crime, or to omit to do any duty the 
omission of which is hereby made a crime, or attempt to do so, every 
person so offending or guilty shall be deemed guilty of a crime, and shall 
for such crime be liable to indictment in any court of the United States 
of competent jurisdiction, and on conviction thereof shall be adjudged 
to pay a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or suffer imprison¬ 
ment for a term not exceeding three years, or both, in the discretion of 
the court, and pay the costs of prosecution. And for all purposes of such 
elections, and the duties in relation thereto or growing out of the same, 
all such officers are declared to be officers of the United States. 

Sec. 2. That if any person shall by force, threat, menace, intimidation, 
or otherwise unlawfully prevent any citizen or citizens from assembling 
in public meeting, to freely discuss or hear discussed, the claims or merits 
of any officer of the government of the United States, or of any candi¬ 
date for the office of President, Vice-President or elector thereof, or 
representative in Congress, or delegate in Congress from any Territory, 
or the laws or measures of Congress, or any measure existing, pending, 
or proposed, affecting the government of the United States, or any de¬ 
partment or officer thereof, or if any person shall by any such means 
break up, disperse, or molest any such assemblage, or any citizen in or 
of so eh assemblage, when met or meeting to discuss or hear discussion 
as aforesaid, or shall by any such means prevent any citizen from 
attending any such assemblage, every person so offending shall be deemed 
guilty of a crime, and shall be liable to indictment, fine, or imprison¬ 
ment in the same manner as provided for persons guilty of any crime in 
section one of this act. 


CHAPTEE V. 

CONTEST OF THE ELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT AND 
OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS. 

The necessity for some provision by which the appointment of electors 
of President and Vice-President and the election of a President and 
Vice-President may be contested must be obvious. 

By the Constitution 29 the President and Vice-President are elected by 
electors appointed every fourth year in each State, in such manner as 
the legislature may prescribe; but Congress may determine the time of 

28 See act of February 25, 1865,13 Stat., p. 437. 

29 Art. II, secs. 1, 2, 4. 



84 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


choosing the electors and the day on which they shall give their votes. 
Congress lias provided by law that the electors shall be “ appointed on 
the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November/’ 30 and by the Con¬ 
stitution 31 they are required to “ meet in their respective States and vote 
by ballot for President and Vice-President,” as the law 32 requires, “on 
the first Wednesday in December” after their appointment. The Con¬ 
stitution 33 also provides that the returns of the votes given by the electors 
shall be certified and transmitted by them to the President of the Senate, 
and that “the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate 
and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall 
then be counted; the person having the greatest number of votes for Presi¬ 
dent shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole num¬ 
ber of electors appointed;” and so of the Vice-President. 

The States have, by law, regulated the manner of appointing electors 
and the mode of filling vacancies. 34 In nearly all the States they have 
uniformly been elected by the voters of each State at large, by general 
ticket ; and the State laws prescribe the officers who shall conduct elec¬ 
tions, the mode of declaring and certifying the result, and the qualifica¬ 
tions of voters. 

The electoral vote of the State of New York, in 1868, was cast for 
Horatio Seymour for President by electors whose appointment was made 
by votes fraudulently or illegally cast in the city and State. General 
Grant has a majority of all the electoral votes independently of New 
York, but, in view of the great wrong perpetrated against republican 
institutions and of the possibility that similar frauds in one great city 
may at some future time determine a presidential election and endanger 
the peace of the country, it is of the highest importance that Congress, 
now forewarned of the danger, may ascertain if there be a remedy, and, 
if not, speedily provide one. 

For such a contingency there is now no legal remedy provided. The 
two houses of Congress when assembled in order that the electoral votes 
may be counted are not clothed with judicial power to adjudge, even 
upon sufficient evidence, that the presidential electors of any State were 
fraudulently chosen, or to declare that the vote of a State should be 
counted differently from that certified by the electors. 

When the returns are properly certified and show a compliance with 
the Constitution and laws, and are properly transmitted to the Presi¬ 
dent of the Senate, they are conclusive, and no inquiry can be made 

30 Act of January 23, 1845, 5 Stat., 721 ; 1 Brightly’s Pig'-, 254. 

31 Art. XII of Amendments. 

32 Act of March 1, 1792, 1 Stat., 239. 

33 Art. XII of Amendments. The constitutional provisions relating to national elections 
are as follows: 

Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislatures thereof may direct, a number of electors equal 
o the whole number of senators and representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but 
no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be 
appointed an elector.—Art. II, sec, 1. 

The electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by ballot, &c. 

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the 
certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. In case of no choice, then “ the House of Representatives 
shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President,"—Art. XII. 

The times, places, and manner of holdiug elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in 
each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regula¬ 
tions, except as to places of choosing senators.—Art. I, sec. 4. 

The Congress may determine the time of choosing electors and the day on which they shall give their 
votes, which day shall be the same throughout the United Slates.—Art. II, sec. 4. 

34 When the electoral vote of 1864 was counted, only two votes were returned from Nevada, 
One of the electors of that State did not appear to vote in the electoral college, and the State 
had no law for filling the vacancy. (54 Cong. Globe, 2d sess. 38th Cong., 1864-’65, p. 668.) 
Louisiana and Tennessee returned votes, but they were not counted, being excluded by the 
ioint resolution on that subject. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


85 


contesting the appointment of the electors who made them, if they 
have been duly declared properly appointed. The two houses act in a 
ministerial capacity, and their whole duty is to count the votes as cer¬ 
tified to the president of the Senate, and the result follows as matter of 
public history, conclusively shown by the votes so certified returned, 
opened, and counted. The two houses do not act in a legislative capacity, 
and can do no more than judge of the regularity of the returns certified 
to the President of the Senate from lawful States by electors duly 
appointed, and count the votes accordingly . 35 

30 The Constitution does not expressly declare by whom the votes are to be counted, and 
the result declared. In the case of questionable votes, and a closely contested election, this 
power may be all important.—1 Kent's Corn., 7th ed., 296, sec. 13. 

When it became necessary to count the electoral vote of 1820, a question arose as to 
whether the vote of Missouri should be included. On the 4th of February, 1821, Mr. Clay 
reported a resolution in the House which was adopted by a vote of 90 to 67, as follows: 

That if any objection be made to the votes of Missouri, and the coitnting or omitting to count, which shall 
not essentially change the result of the election, in that case they shall be reported by the President of the 
Senate in the following manner: “Were the votes of Missouri to be counted, the result would be, for A. B., 

for President of the United States-votes ; if not counted, for A. B., as President of the United States, - 

votes; but in either event, A. B. is elected President of the United States ; and in the same manner for Vice- 
President.” 

The electoral vote was counted in the House of Representatives in the presence of the two 
houses. When the votes of the electors for Missouri were announced by the President of 
the Senate and handed to the tellers— 

Mr. Livermore, of New Hampshire, rose and said: 

Mr. President and Mr. Speaker: I object to receiving any votes for President and Vice-President from Mis¬ 
souri, because Missouri is not a State of this Union. 

A motion was then made by a member of the Senate that the Senate do now withdraw to 
its chamber; and the question having been put was decided in the affirmative; and the 
Senate retired. 

The House being called to order, Mr. Floyd, of Virginia, then rose and submitted the 
following resolution: 

Resolved, That Missouri is one of the States of this Union, and her votes for President and Vice-President 
the United States ought to be received and counted. 

Mr. Archer, of Maryland, said: 

That entertaining the same sentiments as the gentleman from Virginia with respect to the refusal to admit 
Missouri into the Union, he yet felt himself bound to move, as he now did, to postpone the further considera¬ 
tion of this resolution indefinitely. He was opposed to this house undertaking to proceed in any manner as to 
the legality of the electoral votes. He could recognize no power in the House of Representatives on this 
subject separate from the Senate. The expressions in the Constitution in regard to the counting of the votes 
of electors, &c., he considered as imperative. All questions arising out of it, according to his construction, 
must be settled in joint meeting of the two houses. He could not agree that this house had a right to determine 
whether any vote should be received or rejected. What are the words of the Constitution? “The President 
of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and 
the votes shall then be counted.” Does it not follow, asked Mr. Archer, that the votes must be counted in the 
presence of the two houses ? For what purpose do they assemble together, unless it be to determine on the 
legality of the votes? If not for this purpose, the joint meeting is for form and show, and nothing else. We 
must, in my apprehension, determine the question in joint meeting, and in no other way. Entertaining this 
opinion, he said he should vote for the indefinite postponement of any proposition the object of which is to 
determine in this house the legality or illegality of any electoral vote. At the last election of President an 
objection was made by the gentleman who now presides to receiving the votes of Indiana, because they were 
given in before the passage of the act declaring her admission into the Union. On that occasion, as now, the 
Senate retired. I thought then, as now, said Mr. Archer, that they had no right to retire until the question 
was settled. On that occasion the House determined to postpone indefinitely the objection. The motives 
which induced that determination were doubtless various; it was my opinion then that it was improper to 
entertain the objection in the House, and I think the same of the present proposition. 

Mr. Archer was followed by Mr. Randolph, who argued that Congress had no authority 
to question the electoral votes; but the objection was withdrawn, inasmuch as the vote of 
Missouri would not affect the result .—Annals of Congress, 1820-’21, 16</t Congress, 2 d 
session, pp. 1154, 1155. 

Mr. Floyd’s resolution was laid upon the table. The two houses again met. The vote ot 
Missouri was announced in the form indicated in Mr. Clay’s resolution, which had been also 
adopted by the Senate. 

On the 11th of February, 1857, both houses of Congress being in joint session for the 
purpose of counting the votes of the electors of the several States tor President and Vice- 
President of the United States, the tellers reported the result of their count, which was de¬ 
clared by the presiding officer; whereupon it was moved that the vote of the State of Wis¬ 
consin be rejected, and that the tellers be instructed not to include it in their count, for the 
reason that it was cast on a day different from that provided by law. Discussion ensued, 
which lasted for some time, when the Senate retired from the hall of the House and the 
Speaker resumed the chair. Debate continued in both houses for the remainder ot the day, 
and was resumed the following morning, when a resolution was adopted appointing a com- 




86 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


The mode by which a remedy may he provided, in case fraudulent 
votes have decided the result in a State, is more difficult to determine. 

mittee of two members of the House and one member of the Senate to wait upon James 
Buchanan and John C. Breckinridge, and inform them they had, respectively, been elected 
President and Vice-President of the United States. 

In the discussion Mr. Bingham said : “It seems to me that the Constitution imposes upon 
Congress—the Senate and House—the duty of counting and announcing the whole of the 
votes duly certified as having been cast for President and Vice-President on the day pre¬ 
scribed by law, and the further duty of ascertaining and declaring for whom such votes 
were given. 

“ It is not for the President of the Senate nor the tellers to determine what votes shall be 
counted or rejected. The Constitution provides that ‘the President of the Senate shall, in 
the presence of the Senate and House, open alt the certificates,’ but it does not provide that 
he shall count ‘ the votes,’ the language being that ‘the votes shall then be counted.’ What 
votes s hall then be counted ? All that appear upon the face of the certificates thus opened ? 
Not at all; but only the votes to which each State is entitled, and which by the certificates 
appe ar, or may be presumed, to have been given at the time required by the Constitution 
and prescribed by the statute.”—34 Congressional Globe, 3 d scss.'Mth Cong., page 652; and 
see Appendix Congressional Globe., 1st sess. 34 th Cong., vol. 33, 1855-’56, page 126. 

The Hon. John C. Hamilton, of New York, in a recent article advocating an amendment 
of the Constitution so as to provide for the election of electors of President and Vice-Presi¬ 
dent in single districts, and to authorize Congress to decide on the validity of their election, 
said that “the validity of” their election should “be decided by Congress.” He adds: 

The motive for the last clause is obvious. The only provision for determining the lawfulness of the 
elections is now with the State canvassers. The right to do this is obviously proper to Congress, as the 
representatives of a nation whose government is a “ rejjresentative democracy.” 

Elsewhere it has been said: 

To have the executive officers dependent upon the legislative would certainly be a violation of that 
principle, so necessary to preserve the freedom of republics, that the legislative and executive powers should 
be separate and independent. Would it have been proper that he should be appointed by the Senate? I 
apprehend that still stronger objections could be urged against that—cabal, intrigue, corruption, everything 
bad, would have been the necessary concomitant of every election. 

To avoid the inconveniences already enumerated, and many others that might be suggested, the mode 
before us was adopted. By it we avoid corruption, and we are little exposed to the lesser evils of party and 
intrigue; and when the government shall be organized, proper care will UNDOUBTEDLY be taken to counteract 
influence even of that nature. The Constitution, with the same view, has directed that the day on which the 
electors shall give their votes shall be the same throughout the United States. I flatter myself the experi¬ 
ment will be a happy one for our country.— Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, Elliot's Debates, vol. 3, p. 298. 

In 1865, during the rebellion, Congress, by concurrent resolution, directed that no certifi¬ 
cates of votes from the rebel States should be opened or votes counted in their presence. 

On the 13th of February, 1869, Mr. Robertson, of South Carolina, introduced into the 
Senate a proposition to amend the Constitution, as follows : 

Article 17. The Congress shall have the power to establish a tribunal for the purpose of considering and 
determining all questions which may arise as to the validity of the electoral vote of any State for President 
and Vice-President of the United States, which said tribunal shall exercise its jurisdiction under such regula¬ 
tion as Congress shall make. 

On the 15th February, 1869, Mr. Bromwell, of Illinois, introduced in the House a some¬ 
what similar proposition. 

On the 8th February, 1869, the House of Representatives passed the following preamble 
and resolution, previously adopted in the Senate: 

Whereas the question whether the State of Georgia has become and is entitled to representation in the two 
bouses of Congress is now pending and undetermined; and whereas by the joint resolution of Congress passed 
July 20, 1868, entitled “ A resolution excluding from the electoral college votes of States lately in rebellion, 
which shall not have been reorganized,” it was provided that no electoral votes from any of the States lately 
in rebellion should be received or counted for President or Vice-President of the Unites States until, among 
other things, such State should have become entitled to representation in Congress pursuant to the acts of 
Congress in that behalf: Therefore, 

Resolved by the Senate, (the House of Representatives concurring,) That on the assembling of the two houses 
on the second Wednesday of February, 1869, for the counting of the electoral vote for President and Vice- 
President, as provided by law and the joint rules, if the counting or omitting to count the electoral votes, if 
any, which may be presented, as of the State of Georgia, shall not essentially change the result, in that case 
they shall be reported by the President of the Senate in the following manner : “Were the votes presented, as 

of the State of Georgia, to be counted, the result would be, for-for President of the United States,- 

votes; if not counted, for-for President of the United States, -votes ; but iu either case-is 

elected President of the United States ;” and in the same manner for Vice-President. 

Georgia bad been reconstructed and admitted to representation in Congress by the act of 
June 25, 1868, and six of her representatives were in Congress when the resolution passed. 
But a question was made as to whether that State had complied with said act so as to entitle 
her to representation, and her senators were not admitted. On the 10th February, when the 
vote of Georgia was presented, General Butler objected, and proceedings and a discussion 
were had which are so recent as to be within the recollection of all. 

On the same.day, when the certificate from Louisiana was read, Mr. Mullins, of Tennessee, 
made an objection to counting the vote, as follows: 

I object to any count of the votes certified from the State of Louisiana, and raise the question in regard to 








ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


87 


It may be that the Supreme Court of the United States has not, and 
cannot have, original jurisdiction to decide upon the right of a President 
to hold the office . 36 

Every government ought to have the powers necessary to its preser¬ 
vation , 37 to secure the rightful expression of the will of the people through 
the ballot-box, and to furnish a remedy in case fraudulent votes have 
defeated that will. 

It would seem to the committee that this power, so essential to the 
existence of the government, the maintenance of popular sovereignty, 
and the peace of the nation, is inherent in the government and may be 
deduced from the letter, spirit, and purpose of the Constitution; and if 
so, that Congress may provide laws “necessary and proper for carrying 
into execution” the powers of the government derived from the people , 38 

them that no valid, election of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States has been held in 
said State. 

The Senate having retired, “the question whether the vote should be counted ” was decided 
in the affirmative in the House by yeas 137, nays 63; not voting, 22. 

After the roll was called, before the result was announced, Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio, 
attempted to submit the following: 

I make the point of order and of constitutional law, that no objection can be made or entertained to count¬ 
ing the electoral vote of any State, except that there is no such State entitled to vote, or that the certificate 
transmitting the vote is irregular in form, or that the vote was not given at the time or in the manner required 
by law, or by the electors shown to be duly elected ; and it is not competent even upon sufficient evidence 
t-o prove that electors were chosen by fraudulent or illegal votes, or that an election is irregular or invalid 
when duly certified, until a law regulating the subject is enacted ; and no vote of the llouse can be taken to 
decide the objection not made, but it must be decided in the whole convention. J 

As no evidence had been taken to show that “ no valid election was had m Louisiana,” it 
would seem to be a most dangerous rule to hold that the vote of a State regr .r in form may 
be rejected w ithout evidence, and this subject certainly needs to be regulated in some way. 

The able speech of Mr. Shellabarger, in the House, of February 11, exclusively shows 
that the joint rule (No. 22, of February 6, 1865) of the two houses in relation to counting the 
vote is unconstitutional, and he discusses the constitutionality of the concurrent resolution of 
February 8, 1869, as to Georgia. Neither the rule nor resolution is a The Constitution 

declares that “ the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the t "ate and House of 
Representatives, open all the certificates, and the vote shall THEN he counte> l ’ 

This joint convention of the two houses is constituted a tribunal to decideupon the count¬ 
ing of the votes. The power might have been lodged with a designated number of each 
House if the Constitution had so provided. Yet in either case it is difficult to see how the 
Senate and House, in their legislative capacity, can make rules to bind a convention having no 
legislative attribute, and as wholly distinct from Congress as if composed of different officers. 

It is equally difficult to perceive how each house, acting separately , can decide any question. 

The Constitution says, “ the vote shall then be counted ”—that is, be decided by the whole 
convention , whose duties may of course be regulated by law, and which may be enlightened 
by evidence taken in pursuance of such law. But this tribunal constitutes a tiers-6tat, in 
which a majority of all must decide. 

The Constitution nowhere says the houses may act separately, even to make a concurrent 
rule, or adopt a concurrent resolution like that as to Georgia. It is impossible legally to 
decide a question until it has arisen, and until the vote of a State is presented neither house 
can know what objections may exist to it. The Constitution says it shall “ then ” be decided. 
If so, it cannot be determined by a concurrent rule in advance, and Congress cannot prop¬ 
erly avoid the duty of deciding. If they may act separately on such subjects, or in counting 
the vote, or deciding questions, then one senator may give a casting vote decisive of a presi¬ 
dential election. 

The whole discussion on this subject is full of instruction, and engaged many of the ablest 
men in Congress. 

It shows that this is the weak point in our Constitution, from which revolution may come 
if ample provision is not speedily made to regulate it. 

^Marbury vs. Madison, 1 Crauch, 137; in re Metzer, 5 Howard, 176-191; in re Kaine, 14 
Howard, 119; Osborn vs. United States Bank, 9 Wheaton, 820. 

37 Federalist, No. 59; 2 Elliot’s Debates, 276, 277; 1 Story on Constitution, sec. 816. 

38 Sec. 2. Story on Const., 3d ed., 356, sec. 1483; act of Congress of 1st March, 1792, 
ch. 8, sec. 11; 2 Elliot’s Debates, 359, 360; Journal of Const. Convention, 361-382. 
Story doubts if Congress has power to provide for a vacancy in the office of President not 
in terms authorized by the Constitution, but in that he is clearly wrong. 

“America has chosen to be, in many respects and to many purposes, a nation, and for all 
these purposes the government is competent and complete. The people have declared that in 
the exercise of all powers given for these objects it is supreme. It can then, in effecting 




88 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


By tlie Constitution the President of the Senate, in the presence of the 
two houses of Congress, is to open the certificates of the presidential 
electors, showing the votes for President, and these are then to be counted. 
(Article 12, amendments.) 

Congress also has power to “make all laws necessary and proper for 
carrying into execution all powers vested by the Constitution in the gov¬ 
ernment, or in any department or officer thereof.” (Article 1, section 6.) 

The President of the Senate is an officer , and the two houses are a 
department. 

Congress may therefore pass all laws necessary and proper to enable 
this department to ascertain the result of a presidential election, 
and to “ enforce duties positively enjoined by the Constitution.” But 
during the few days which remain of this Congress it is not practicable 
to mature and consider a well digested bill providing a mode of contest¬ 
ing the election of presidential electors, or the office of President and 
Vice-President, or of prescribing a plan by which the two houses of 
Congress, when assembled to count electoral votes, may receive evidence 
and decide controverted questions. It cannot well be doubted but all this 
may be provided for under the power which Congress has to execute the 
provisions of the Constitution. 

these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American terri¬ 
tory.” (Cohens t cs. Virginia, 6 Wheat., 413.) 

“ In all those^-stances which are within the sphere of the general government the higher 
obligations ofessJegiance and duty to it supersede what was due to the State governments.” 
(Rawle on the^onstitution, 30.) 

“ If any givec^power was originally vested in this State, (New York,) if it had not been 
exclusively cedeh4o Congress, or if the exercise of it had not been prohibited to the States, 
we might then go ‘on in the exercise of the power until it came practically into collision with 
the exercise of some ^ngressional power. When that happened to be the case, the State 
power would be sq. controlled.” (Livingston vs. Van Ingen, 9 Johns , 507.) 

“In every q}pyV,oase of legislation, (except taxation,) the concurrent power in the State 
would seem ffi^e a power entirely dependent, and subject to be taken away absolutely 
whenever Congress shall choose to exercise their powers of legislation over the same subject. 

* * * * The Rational government ought to be supreme within its constitutional limits, for 

it is intrusted with the paramount interests and general welfare of the whole nation.” (I 
Kent’s Com., 393.) 

“ The judiciary act is the true exposition of the Constitution, with respect to the concurrent 
jurisdiction of the State courts and the exclusive jurisdiction of those of the United States. 
By that act the'jurisdiction of the State courts was excluded in all criminal cases, and with 
respect to offences arising under acts of Congress.” (Ely vs. Peck, 7 Conn., 239.) 

“The progress and impulse of popular opinion is rapidly destroying every constitutional 
check, every conservative element, intended by the sages who framed the earliest American con¬ 
stitutions as safegtiards against the abuses of popular suffrage.” (1 Kent’s Com., 229, note A.) 

“ Congress is expressly authorized to employ necessary means for the execution of its pow¬ 
ers, &c. ‘Necessary’ stands for any means calculated to produce the end.” (McCulloch 
vs. the State of Maryland, 4 Wheat.., 316.) 

The Constitution prescribes certain duties to the States as political bodies, and to their 
governments, officers, and people. Madison declared that “the powers of the new govern¬ 
ment will act on the States.” (Federalist, No. 40.) 

Laws, then, must be made to enforce the Constitution. Hamilton says, “ The States, 
well as individuals, are bound by these laws.” (2 Elliot’s Deb., 362.) The Supreme Cou 
say, “The legislatures of the States are, in some respects, under the control of Congress. 
(1 Wheaton, 304.) 

The first act passed by the first Congress under the Constitution, June 1, 1789, was to 
enforce the Constitution, in requiring members of State legislatures to take a prescribed oath. 
(See debates on that bill, and 16 Peters’ R., 636 ; see debate in House of Representatives on 
National Bank bill, Feb. 2, 1791, Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, 16 Peters.) 

The President is the chief executive officer of the nation. He can only be lawfully elected 
in the prescribed mode. The Supreme Court has said that “the national government is 
bound, through its proper departments, legislative, &c., to carry into effect all the rights and 
duties imposed upon it by the Constitution.” (16 Peters; see Farrar’s Manual of the 
Const., 186-201.) 

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution secures the “ privileges of citizens,” and 
gives power to enforce the security by law ; and the right to ascertain the real result of an 
election is a proper mode of securing these privileges. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


89 


CHAPTER VI. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AUTHORIZING CONGRESS TO REGULATE 
THE APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS. 

By tlie Constitution the President and Vice-President hold “office 
during the term of four years,” and are to be elected as follows: 

“ Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof 
may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators 
and representatives to which the State may be entitled in Congress.” 39 

These electors are required to vote by ballot for President and Vice- 
President, and transmit the result to the President of the Senate, to be 
declared in the presence of the two houses of Congress. 40 

The Constitution declares that— 

The Congress may determine the time for choosing the electors and the day on which 
they shall give their votes, which day shall be the same throughout the United States. 41 

It will be seen the national government is dependent on the pleasure 
of State legislatures to provide for the appointment of electors of Presi¬ 
dent and Vice-President. This places the national government in an 
attitude of dependence utterly inconsistent with its safety and peace, 
and invites dissatisfied States to combine for the purpose of destroying 
the government—a work in which they maybe encouraged by the jealousy 
of foreign nations seeking our overthrow. 42 

Under the old confederation: 

Rhode Island at a very critical period withdrew her delegates from Congress, and thus 
prevented some important measures from being carried. 43 

The possibility of a combination of States to suspend indefinitely the 
legislative functions of the government induced the convention which 
framed our national Constitution to reserve to Congress the right to 
make or alter State regulations as to the times, places, and manner of 
holding elections for representatives ip Congress. 44 

The very fact that this original and revisory power is reserved to Con¬ 
gress has, until recently, avoided the necessity for its exercise. 

It has operated as a salutary inducement to the States to so far per¬ 
form their duties as not to invite the exercise of the power of Congress. 

But while this necessary power lias been reserved to Congress as to 
representatives, it has been strangely withheld as to electors of Presi¬ 
dent and Vice-President. 

The same reasons for reserving the power to Congress in the case of 
representatives applies with equal if not greater force to electors of 
President and Vice-President. 45 

And now, when it is shown that in the largest and most populous of all 
the States—the great State of New York—at the recent presidential elec- 

3y Constitution, art. 2, sec. 6. 

40 Art. 12 of Amendments. 

41 Const., art. 2, sec. 1. 

42 Federalist, No. 59. This subject is forcibly presented by Judge Story in reference to the 
election of representatives in Congress. (1 Story, Com. Const., 814, et sequor.) 

43 1 Story on Const., sec. 816. 1 Elliot’s Debates, 44, 45; Federalist, No. 22. 

44 Const., art. 1, sec. 4. 

46 When the Constitution of the United States was submitted to the New York convention, 
Mr. Jay, afterwards Chief Justice Jay, discussing the clause giving Congress power to regu¬ 
late the election of representatives, said : “ Suppose that by design or accident the States 
should neglect to appoint representatives, certainly there should bo some constitutional 
remedy.” This sagacious statesman was correct, and his reasoning applies with equal force 
to States which will not preserve the purity of the ballot, not only as to representatives but 
also as to presidential electors. 



90 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK 


tion, probably more than 50,000 fraudulent votes were cast by a fearful 
conspiracy, defrauding the people out of their rightful choice of electors, 
and that the men who executed these frauds are at large, having immu¬ 
nity from all punishment, while those who planned and aided them reap 
the rewards of office, it is not too much to say the time lias come when 
the national government should be clothed with the power to make and 
alter State regulations respecting the times, places, and manner of 
choosing electors of President and Vice-President, leaving Congress to 
judge whether and when it may be expedient to provide officers either 
in some of the great cities, or generally to conduct such elections. In 
doing this, an opportunity is afforded also to secure to every qualified 
voter the right to vote by ballot in convenient election districts to be prescribed 
by law . 

This subject has attracted attention, and the plan of clothing Congress 
with the power proposed has received the sanction of some of the ablest 
and best statesmen of the country. 46 

The committee report a joint resolution in accordance with these 
views: 

JOINT , RESOLUTION proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled , (two-thirds of both houses concurring,) That the following amendment 
of the Constitution of the United States be proposed to the several States for adoption, pur¬ 
suant to the fifth article of said Constitution : 

Article —. 

Congress may at any time by law make uniform 47 regulations, or alter by a uniform rule 
those prescribed by the legislatures of the several States, for the appointment of electors 
of President and Vice-President, who shall be chosen by the voters in the States qualified 
to vote for members of the House of Representatives, and who shall vote by ballot, in con¬ 
venient election districts prescribed by law. 

ELECTION OF PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT DIRECTLY BY THE 
PEOPLE, OR BY ELECTORS.CHOSEN IN SINGLE DISTRICTS. 

There is evidently a strong and growing feeling in favor of electing 
the President and Vice-President directly by the people. 48 The subject 
is Avell worthy of consideration. 

But if this should not be deemed practicable or advisable now, the 
plan of electing in single districts the electors of President and Vice- 
President, now authorized by the Constitution, merits the most serious 
consideration. 

46 0n the 28th January, 1869, Mr. Buckalew, (democrat,) of Pennsylvania, introduced into 
the Senate of the United States a proposition to amend the Constitution as follows: 

The 2d clause, 1st section, article 2, of the Constitution of the United States shall be amended to read as 
follows : Each State shall appoint, by a vote of the people thereof qualified to vote for representatives in Con¬ 
gress, a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the State may 
be entitled in the Congress ; but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit 
under the United States, shall be appointed an elector; and the Congress shall have power to prescribe the 
manner in which such electors shall be chosen by the people. 

47 The object of requiring a uniform rule is to prevent Congress from authorizing elections 
by districts in one State, and by general ticket in another, to suit the exigencies of politi¬ 
cal parties. 

48 This has been proposed in Congress.—Ashley’s speech of May 29, 1868. The President 
in his annual message of December 9, 1868, said : 

I renew the recommendation contained in my communication to Congress dated the 18th July last—a copy 
of which accompanies this message—that the judgment of the people should be taken on the propriety of so 
amending the federal Constitution that it shall provide— 

1st. For an election of President and Vice-President by a direct vote of the people, instead of through the 
agency of electors, and making them ineligible for re-election to a second term. 

2d. For a distinct designation of the person who shall discharge the duties of President, in the event of a 
vacancy in that office by the death, resignation, or removal of both the President and Vice-President. 

3d. For the election of senators of the United States directly by the people of the several States, instead of 
by the legislatures; and 

4th. For the limitation to a period of years of the terms of federal judges. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


91 


The Constitution provides that u each State shall appoint, in such 
manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors 
equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which 
the State may be entitled in the Congress.”— Art. 2, sec. 1. 

It is competent for the legislature of any State to provide for the 
election of these electors in single districts prescribed by State law. 
Efforts have been made to secure this in some of the States, but they 
have uniformly failed. 49 

Electors have generally been chosen in the States by a general ticket 
tor the whole State, and by votes cast by the voters in prescribed elec¬ 
tion districts. The legislatures of some of the States have appointed 
the electors. 

In some of the States representatives in Congress were chosen by 
general ticket, but this was deemed so unequal and unjust that Congress 
interposed in 18G2, and required, as a general rule, that they should be 
elected by single districts composed of contiguous territory.® 0 

A change of the Constitution, so as to provide for the election of these 
presidential electors in single districts, has been urged by some of the 
ablest men of the nation. 51 


49 On the 7th of May, 1800, Alexander Hamilton wrote to Governor Jay, of New York, and 
urged him to call the legislature of that State together, for the purpose of districting the 
State so as to elect presidential electors in single districts. He says : “As to its intrinsic 
nature, it is justified by unequivocal reasons of public safety. The reasonable part of the 
world will approve it.”—7 Hamilton's History of the Republic , 380. 

▼ He regarded the mode which has been adopted in a few of the States, of appointing presi¬ 
dential electors by the legislature, as contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, if not its 
letter. He said the Constitution had “not made the appointment of the President to depend 
on pre-existing bodies of men who might be tampered with beforehand,” and he insisted that 
the Constitution “ referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people," * “to 
men chosen by the people for the special purpose.”—See No. 68 of the Federalist. 

His son, Hon. John C. Hamilton, eminent for his learning, says that Hamilton, “at the 
first election of President, urged that the electors should be chosen by the citizens. * * 

He had also, during the preceding year, written to Van Rensselaer, the lieutenant governor, 
on this subject. An effort in conformity with these views, it is seen, had recently been made 
in Congress to provide for districting the States, for the express purpose of choosing electors 
of President, and had been defeated.”—7 Hist, of Repub., 378. 

50 Act of July 16, 1862; 12 U. S. Stat., 572. 

51 In an article in the “Washington Chronicle” of February 2, 1869, Hon. John C. Hamilton, 
referring to this subject and the contest between Burr and Jefferson for the Presidency, says : 

Aaron Burr and Jefferson were competing for the democratic vote in opposition to John Adams, who had 
lost the confidence, never fully enjoyed and never deserved, of the leaders of the Washington party. The 
success of the democratic effort depended upon the vote of the State of New York. To gain the legislature 
was the great object. While throughout the interior of the State the strife was warm, the city of New York 
was the chief arena of the contest. Jefferson’s letters show how intensely he was watching the result. The 
labors of Burr were incessant, and he triumphed. How did he triumph ? 

Hamilton expressly states, by the foreign vote of that city. To insure his success in controlling the legisla¬ 
ture, he was elected a member of it in an interior county not his residence. Thus was proved the truth of 
Jefferson’s remark, that “ great cities are the sores of the body politic.” It was to prevent the recurrence of 
such a scene that Hamilton framed the amendment providing for the districting of each State by Congress, 
to choose the presidential electors. Had the expression of public opinion been fairly obtained since, this might 
have been regarded only as a calamitous exception in our history by those who have forgotten that the result 
of this election established the dominion of the slave power and the continuance of slavery in this republic for 
sixty years. But have not recent events justified Hamilton’s precautionary prudence ? How was the recent 
election in New York carried ? How was the republican party cheated out of the votes of that State ? Who can 
honestly deny that it was carried by “cabal, intrigue, and corruption,” by grossest frauds, that will fester and 
prevail unless this amendment shall become a part of the Constitution. New York now is the only victim of 
her city ; but as vast emporiums of commerce are formed elsewhere near the heart of the nation, similar occur¬ 
rences will, indeed must, ensue. In deciding whether the amendment shall pass, it is always well to remember 
that an omission to exert, when necessary, a salutary power of the Constitution is as great an offence against 
duty as to abuse a power. 

The amendment framed by Hamilton is in these words, the parts not within the quote marks being 
added: 

“As the most eligible mode of obtaining a full and fair expression of the public will, Congress shall,” in i$s 
first session after each decennial census, “divide each State into districts equal to the whole number of sena¬ 
tors and representatives from each State in the Congress of the United States; each of said districts shall be 
formed, as nearly as may be, with an equal proportion of population in each, and of counties and, if necessary, 
of parts of counties contiguous to each other, except where there may be some detached portion of territory 




92 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


The reasons which support the policy of electing representatives m 
single districts are equally cogent in favor of selecting presidential 
electors in the same way. 

In the last presidential election the vote of the city of New York gave 
the entire electors of that State to Horatio Seymour, whereas, if the 
election had been by single districts, General Grant would have received 
17 electoral votes from that State. This is cited simply as an instance 
where one great city by a fraudulent vote has controlled the choice of 
every district of the State. The purpose of the frauds on the elective 
franchise in New York city was to carry the /State . 

If the possibility of doing this shall be removed, in every State where 
the controlling influence of large cities may enable successful frauds of 
this kind to be repeated with similar results, the highest motive therefor 
will cease to exist. And this is precisely what will be accomplished by 
selecting presidential electors in single districts. 

This scheme of course contemplates an abandonment of the plan here¬ 
tofore adopted in some of the States of appointing presidential electors 
by the legislature$ so flagrantly in violation of the republican idea that 
all political power should flow directly from the people. 

The Constitution is “a new evangel 52 to the nations.” It has reared 
the grandest fabric of human government ever known to man. But the 
institutions of a country cannot by any prescience be created in full- 
grown perfection; they must grow by the experience of the past in the 
ever-recurring necessities of the present and the future. 

The investigations of the committee have developed election frauds ofr 
monstrous proportions and most dangerous character. If Congress shall 
devise an adequate remedy to prevent their recurrence, so that the elect¬ 
ive franchise shall forever honestly reflect the popular will, enlightened 
by education made universal under the fostering care of benign laws, 
and extended in the spirit of catholic justice by a universal suffrage 
which knows no distinctions founded on creed, race, color, nativity, edu¬ 
cation, or property, recognizing forever the political equality of all 
rational adult male citizens guiltless of infamous crime, the republic 
will continue to bless with happiness and prosperity the innumerable mil- v 
lions of people who will throng this continent, soon to be exclusively its 
own, where it may abide and endure perpetual as time. 

The committee report a joint resolution in accordance with these 
views: 

JOINT RESOLUTION proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, (two-tliirds of both houses concurring,) 
That the following amendment of the Constitution of the United States 


not sufficient of itself to form a district, which then shall be annexed to some other district,” the validity of 
which elections shall be decided by Congress. 

On the 1st of February, 1869, Judge Spalding, of Ohio, introduced in the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives a proposition to amend the Constitution, as follows : 

As the most eligible mode of obtaining a full and fair expression of the will of the people in the choice of 
President and Vice-President and representatives in Congress, it shall be the duty of Congress, at its first 
session after each decennial census, to divide the respective States into.electoral and congressional districts, 
the electoral districts equalling in number the senators and representatives from said States, respectively, in 
Congress, and the congressional districts equalling the number of representatives in the same body : said dis¬ 
tricts shall be formed, as nearly as may be, with an equal amount of population, and be made up of counties 
and parts of counties, parishes, or other subdivisions contiguous to each other. Each of said electoral districts 
thus formed shall quadrennially choose one elector of President and Vice-President of the United States, and 
each of said congressional districts shall biennially choose one representative to the Congress of the United 
States; the time, place, and manner of holding such elections of electors and representatives to be prescribed 
by Congress. 

M Bingham’s argument on trial of the assassins of President Lincoln, p. 30. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 93 

be proposed to tlie several States for adoption, pursuant to the fifth 
article of said Constitution: 


Article —. 

The electors of President and Vice-President shall be chosen as fol¬ 
lows : 

Two 53 electors of President and Vice-President shall be chosen at large 
from each State by the qualified voters therein. 

A number of electors in each State equal to the whole number of rep¬ 
resentatives to which such State may be entitled in Congress shall be 
chosen in single districts of contiguous and compact territory, each con¬ 
taining, as nearly as practicable, an equal amount of population. 

The times, places, and manner of choosing such electors shall be pre¬ 
scribed in each State by the legislature thereof, but the Congress may at 
any time by law make or alter such regulations. 

Congress shall prescribe the mode of determining the validity of the 
choice of electors, and of contesting the right to the office of President 
and Vice-President. 


63 This preserves the present distribution of power, and will make it practicable to adopt 
congressional for electoral districts. If all the electors should be chosen in single districts, 
the electoral and congressional districts must necessarily be different. 



INDEX TO REPORT. 


A. 

Page. 

Adams, Robert G., testimony of. 29 

Arrests. 57 

Archer, Mr., remarks of. 85 

B. 

Barbour, judge, reference to.-. 9, 20 

Blank applications, number of, printed by order of court. 12,13 

Blank certificates, number of, printed by order of court. 12,13 

Blanks, number of, and time when furnished to the courts. 14 

Blanks, form of, in supreme court. 32, 33, 34 

Blanks, testimony relating to. 13 

Biser, Abner, testimony of. 18 

Butler, James P., testimony of. 18 

Boeck, Maximilian, testimony of. 20 

Bliss, George, jr., testimony of.-. 22,24,44 

Barnard, judge, reference to.21,24,25,34 

Ballot-box stuffing, reference to. 49 

testimony relating to. 49 

Bill, relating to the election for representatives to Congress, &c. 82 

Bingham, Judge John A., remarks of. 86 

reference to argument of. 92 

Buckalew, as to constitutional amendment. 90 

C. 

Common pleas, court of. 22 

Cook, Peter, testimony of. 24 

Canvassing, fraudulent. 47 

Circular, secret. 48 

Committee of citizens. 54 

Census, obstruction of. 54 

Challenging, how prevented. 55 

Conspiracy of democratic party. 55 

Crime, immunity for. 57 

Contest of the election of President, Vice-President, &c. 83-88 

Constitutional provision, as to national elections. 84 

Clay, Henry, resolution of. 85 

Constitutional amendment, discussion of. 89 

Committee, joint resolution of, as to constitutional amendment. 90,92 

D. 

• Dolan, Hugh F., testimony of. 41 

Davis, Henry E., opinion of...„.. 56 

E. 

Evils demanding a remedy. 1 

Elliott, Benjamin C., impeachment of. 09 

articles of impeachment of. 69 

F. 

Frauds, extensive preparations for. 12 13 

specific evidence of. j 4 

individual instances of. 14 

in five different wards. 50 

how perpetrated. 53 

means employed for accomplishment of.;. 54 

proved in detail in Sixth ward... 63 

















































ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


D5 


Frauds, remedies for. 

Frost, Calvin, testimony of. 

Fullerton, William, opinion of. 

Fraudulent democratic vote, extent of. 

how shown. 

Floyd, -, testimony of.. 

G. 

Garvin, Judge, reference to. 

testimony of. 

Gale, Moses D., reference to. 

testimony of. 

Gillespie, Adam, reference to. 

testimony of. 

Greene, William H., testimony of. 

Guilty, protection of. 

German Republican Committee, resolution of. 

Georgia, preamble and resolution as to. 

H. 

Hendrick, William H., testimony of. 

Hall, A. Oakey, testimony of. 

secret circular of. 

advice of, to democratic canvassers. 

effect of advice of. 

object of secret circular of. 

reference to. 

Hilton, Henry, opinion of. 

Hoffman, John T., extract from proclamation of. 

Hamilton, John C., as to constitutional amendment. 

Hamilton, Alexander, as to presidential electors. 

I. 

Impeachment of Benjamin C. Elliott. 

J. 

Jones, Judge, reference to. 

Jarvis, Nathaniel, jr., testimony of. 

Johnson, Henry, testimony of. 

Jay, Chief Justice, remarks of. 

Johnson, President, as to constitutional amendment. 

K. 

Kent, Edwin R., testimony of. 

L. 

Lyle, Henry, testimony of. 

Lackey Joseph L., testimony of. 

Loew, Charles E., reference to.l. 

admissions of. 

testimony of. 

Leverson, M. R., testimony of. 

Livermore, Mr., reference to. 

Lawrence, (Judge) William, as to constitutional amendment 

M. 

McCunn, (Judge) John H., reference to. 

testimony of. 

Meeks, Joseph, reference to.. 

Murrell, Judge, reference to.. 

Minor applications, reference to. 

McCluskey, reference to. 

McDonald, testimony of. 

McAlpine, R. W., testimony of. 

Mack, Patrick, testimony of. 

Murray, Robert, testimony of. 

Mullen, John J., testimony of.. 

Morrissey, John, district of. 

McCartin, James, district of. 

Madison,-, as to voting. 


Page. 

6b 

16 

56 

59 

59 

85 


9,23 
12 
13 
19 

30 

31 
41,42 

57 

70 

86 


40,41 

51 

48.51 

48 

49 

51.52 
54,56 

56 

56 

86,91 

91 


69 


9 

12,21,22,25,62 

49 

_ 89 

90 


35 


. 12,20,25 

.. 18 

. 16,21,27 

. 24 

. 28,34 

21,22,23,24,25,28, 34 

. 85 

. 87 


7,9,20,22,23,24,25,26,35 

. 17,23,35,37,62,63 

.. 9 

. 9 

. 10 

. 16,27 

. 16 

.. 21 

. 24 

.. 39,51 

. 42,43 

. 50 

.. 50 

. 79 



























































96 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


N. 


Neany, Thomas, testimony of. 

Naturalization frauds. 

certificates of. unusual number.. 

number in common pleas.. 

superior court. 

supreme court. 

each day. 

in Kings county. 

procured by republican committee 

fraudulently procured and sold. 

distributed in '‘bundles” and “ quantities 

office of, No. 6 Centre street. 

certificates of, sent to other counties. 

delivered to persons without request. 

issued to fictitious persons. 

issued by clerks. 

democratic offices of. 

certificates of, false personation for, perjury, &c. 

daily average issue by superior court. 

supreme court. 

issued to “ gangs ”.. 

issued in supreme court... 

number of fraudulent. 

manner of, in court of common pleas. 

superior court.. 

supreme court. 

bill withdrawing jurisdiction of certain courts as to. 

in amendment of the several acts as to.. 

North, Samuel, reference to. 


Page. 
18 
5,17 
5 
5 
5 
5 
9 
9 
12 
14,15 
15 
15 

15 

16 
16,47 

l 9 

l 9 

2 °,ol 

3 

4 
27 
35 
35 

24,25 
22,24 
65-70 
72-77 
54 


O. 


Ostrander, Alexander, testimony of. 44 

O’Brien, James, reference to. 47,55 


P. 


Porter, John Iv., opinion or. 56 

Pratt, J., as to naturalization. 80 

President and Vice-President, electors of, direct by the people, &c. 90 

R. 

Repeating. 38, 39 

Repeaters. 39 

headquarters of. 39 

card of. 41 

exchanging of caps, &c., by. 44 

gangs of. 47 

Registries, fraudulent. 45 

table of. 46 

Rosenburg, Benjamin B., arrest, examination, &c., of. 68 

Representatives to Congress, election of, on one day, &c . 77,78 

bill as to election of. 78 

prevention of frauds in the election of. 79-83 

Robinson, Mr., as to constitutional amendment. 86 


S. 

Supreme court, witnesses appearing a great number of times on the naturaliza¬ 


tion applications of. 10 

Superior court, witnesses appearing a great number of times on the naturaliza¬ 
tion applications of. 11 

Supreme court, reporters and spectators driven from. 21 ,22 

testimony as to. 24 

judges of, obstructing investigation. 26,27 

certificates granted by. 27 

blank applications and certificates procured by. 27 

Superior court, testimony as to. 24, 30 

Scannel, Florence, testimony of. 43 


























































ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


97 


Page. 

Sweetzer, Henry, tables of. 61,(52 

Story, as to elections. 78 

Spaulding, Judge, as to constitutional amendment. 92 

Statistics—(see tables.) 

T. 

Table showing the number and nativity of emigrants arriving at the port of New 

York, &c.,.1. 7,8,70 

Table showing the number naturalized in King’s county. 9 

repeating of witnesses in supreme court. 10 

repeating of witnesses in superior court. 11 

number of blanks furnished to the supreme and superior courts. 14 

number of blank applications and certificates procured by 

supreme court. 27 

number naturalized in the supreme court. 28 

discrepancy in testimony of Westlake and Gillespie. 31 

fraudulent registries, illegal voting, &c. 46 

comparative results, &c.. 60,61 

the number and destination of passengers during the year 1868.. 70,71 

Treaty between United States and North German Confederation. 66 

Terrorism and violence. 55 

Train, George Francis, district of. 50 

Tracy, Richard, testimony of.*- 17 

Tilden, Samuel A., reference to. 48 

Tickets, red, reference to. 13,19 

Y. 

Violence and terrorism.-. 55 

Vote, fraudulent, (democratic,) extent of. 59 

how shown...— 59 

Vote of 1868, too great as compared with voters of previous years. 59,60 

votes of previous years. 61 

shown by the average ratio of votes to population_ 62 

Vote of 1868 too great—all tests unite in proving. 63 

W. 

Wilbur, Charles E., testimony of. 13 

Witnesses, democratic professional. 12 

Westlake, Owen E. 30 

testimony of, as to number of naturalization applicatious, on 

file in superior court . 28 

Walling, George W., testimony of. 39 

White, John H., testimony of... 57 

Webster, Daniel, as to suffrage. 79 

H. Eep. Com. 31-7 \ • 















































■ 




























' 




• 1 


VIEWS OF THE MINORITY. 


Mr. Keke, from the minority of the Committee on New York Election 
Frauds, submits their views. 

The minority of the committee being wholly unable to concur with the majority 
either in their assumptions of authority, statements of facts, or conclusions 
upon the law and evidence, respectfully submit the following report: 

It is unquestionably true that irregularities, frauds, and outrages have 
been committed in connection with the conduct of elections ever since 
elective governments were organized amongst men. They are great, 
evils, and interpose great obstacles to the success of representative and 
republican governments; they demand the co-operation of -all men, and 
the most unpartisan and vigilant care of legislators to prevent them; 
they have more or less attended upon elections in all parts of our coun¬ 
try; they seem to arise out of the imperfections in human nature and 
laws, and were never yet successfully overcome by any people, or under 
any past or present condition of civilization. 

A manifest excess of zeal on the part of the majority seems to have per¬ 
suaded them that the world has been to some extent a stranger to such 
things until the last general election in New York. It may not be 
improper for us, therefore, to remark that the history of popular elec¬ 
tions in ours and every other country, and the records of this house in 
connection with contested elections, supply deplorable evidences of the 
wickedness, lawlessness, and corruptions of men and society, and of high 
officers of government in such matters—important and vital as they are 
to the w r ell-being of society and government. It is not alone in New 
York that such conduct has characterized elections. The dominant 
party in this house have, in their disposition of many contested elections, 
set examples of most questionable character to be followed by the people. 
It is conspicuously unjust for the majority to intimate or assume that such 
wrongs and crimes disgrace the members of the democratic party alone. 
This investigation has elicited disgusting evidences of the demoralization 
and criminality of individual members of both political parties. 

The history of elections throughout our country since the predominance 
in it of the present republican party furnishes numerous and stupendous 
examples of lawlessness and frauds in the interests of that party. The 
conduct of elections by them in the city of New York, in the State of 
Ohio, in the State, and especially at Indianapolis, the capital, of Indiana, 
in Kentucky, Missouri, and many other States, during and since the late 
w r ar, has been in the highest degree dishonorable to them and to our 
country, and subversive of the great aim of representative institutions. 
The freedom and purity of elections were many times utterly destroyed; 
and unauthorized persons in very great numbers, and many times w hole 
companies and regiments of soldiers, were, in defiance of law, voted, and 
voted repeatedly in their interests, and elections were thus controlled. 

It appears to be the judgment of the majority that the remedy for 
these great evils can only come from Congress, and need not be expected 
to originate in or be provided by the States of the Union. We fear the 
experience of the country cannot justify concurrence in their opinion. 



100 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK 


Congress has exercised undisputed authority in this District (of Colum¬ 
bia) for many years, and supreme and irresistible, but in our judgment 
usurped, power in many States of the south; but the conduct and inci¬ 
dents of popular elections in these several places affords no reliable or 
encouraging evidence of improvement or reform under federal super¬ 
vision. The body of electors in these places, under congressional tute¬ 
lage, appears to have been depreciated very materially in the essential 
elements of good citizenship. Their elections bring us innumerable evi¬ 
dences and examples of violence, corruption, confusion, lawlessness, and 
anarchy. We trust the people will give solemn consideration to this 
great subject before they consent to commit these vital interests to the 
regulation and jurisdiction of the federal government. 

Before we proceed to the presentation in detail of the facts and our 
conclusions in reference to the late elections in New York, we must sub¬ 
mit, for the better understanding of this matter, a few general facts, the 
significance of which will need no suggestions from us. 

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CONTROL NEW YORK. 

Let it not be forgotten that, for many years past, the State of New 
York has been under the control of the republican party. Its laws for 
the government of the State at large, and of all its cities, and for the 
regulation of all its elections, were either enacted by that party or were 
subject to its unrestricted control, for amendment, repeal, or reformation. 
If, therefore, they are defective, the fault is theirs, and they should be 
held responsible for the evil results which have followed. 

It is true the city of New York has been democratic for several years; 
but it is also true, and it is an impressive fact in this investigation, that 
it was and is the policy of the republican party to deny to and divest 
the city of New York of the great fundamental right of municipal self- 
government. This has been very effectually done by that party, and 
there have been created by it several “boards” and “commissions,” in¬ 
vested with most important powers and jurisdiction, and relieved of all 
responsibility or subordination to the city or the people of the city in the 
discharge of their duties. The powers thus wrongfully taken from the city 
embrace the exclusive control of all elections , and of the entire police force of 
the city. All election officers are appointed and removed , and all police offi¬ 
cers are appointed and removed solely by one of these boards , called the 
“Metropolitan Board of Police.” The result of this transfer of power 
from its rightful possessors has not been promotive of the good order, 
good government, or honor of that great city. 

Let it also be remembered that the election officers to conduct all elec¬ 
tions are constituted, as stated by Hon. A. Oakey Hall, present mayor 
of the city, in his testimony: 

The police board at the designated period, in anticipation of the November election, are 
charged with the duty of naming four inspectors of the registry and of election, the individ¬ 
uals being charged with the two duties in the 340 districts of this city ; the persons so named 
execute both duties. They care for the registry and they take the votes. The police board 
are also charged with the duty of appointing, in time for the election, two poll-clerks at each 
election district, and two canvassers at each election district. The poll-clerks assist the 
inspectors in their duty, and also the canvassers. There is no law, that I am aware of, estab¬ 
lishing that the four inspectors or the two canvassers shall be equally divided between the 
two political parties, but such has been the usage. It is made the duty, by the police act, 
of the superintendent to detail on election day at least one policeman at each poll in each 
election district. There is usually, however, one officer inside the poll and one outside. 

2946. Q. How was it during the last general election ?—A. All this machinery which I 
have described was in operation, so far as I know, and I visited during the election day 
more than Jt»0 polling places personally. 

2947. Q. Was this machinery, so organized and constituted, the only machinery for the 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


101 


protection of the election and of the poll against frauds or unlawful conduct of any kind ?— 
A. It was the only legal machinery, but not the only practical machinery. The practical 
machinery consisted of each party furnishing at each poll a challenger, aud each party more 
or less appointing a committee to conduct the poll and to take charge of the expected illegal 
voting. It was generally done by the local candidates, or supposed to be done by the local 
candidates or their friends. 

*2948. Q Do you know of any interruption on the part of any officer of the legal force to 
which you have referred to the organization of that sort of voluntary force ?—A. I do not, 
except what I have read in the public prints. 

2949. Q. Do you know of any other force, lawful or unlawful, being organized for the pur¬ 
pose of protecting the polls on election day by anybody?—A. I have already stated that the 
two political parties had agents there. 

Under such an organization of election and police officers, aided by 
other officers, challengers, committees, and such political machinery as 
is usually supplied by the voluntary action of parties, it would seem 
almost impossible that very extensive frauds could be successfully prac¬ 
ticed in the interests of either party, at least without the consent and 
co-operation of both; and wherever great frauds were in fact committed 
upon the ballot-box or the registry, the testimony strongly tends to show 
that this was the case. 

ORIGIN AND MOTIVES OF THIS INVESTIGATION. 

This committee was called into being by this house in compliance with 
a memorial from the Union League of Yew York. There was no contest 
pending to render it proper or necessary. It is not confined in its scope 
or purposes to investigations into the conduct of congressional elections, 
or elections for electors for President and Yice-President, but extends to 
all elections for all kinds of officers of the State of Yew York at the 
November election in 1868. This involves an assertion of jurisdiction 
that does not rightfully exist in this house. 

The League, a few days after that election, in order to make a basis for 
their “memorial,” employed several attorneys to wor~k up the case and 
discover evidence necessary to give it some support. These lawyers are 
John A. Foster, Samuel J. Glassey, John H. White, and John I. Daven¬ 
port. The latter is also the clerk of this committee. These gentlemen 
are all earnest partisans of the League. They were all continued in the 
service of the League, after the memorial was presented, to aid the majority 
of this committee in procuring, organizing, disciplining, and in some 
cases pa yinq for such testimonv as has been taken by them. See testimony, 
pp. 114, 118, 183, 227, 352, 472, 597, 604. 

Besides these gentlemen, it also appears in evidence that Howard T. 
Marston and George Bliss, jr., attorneys, William P. Wood, a United 
States detective, and other members of the Leagne, were employed in the 
same business. Their talents, ingenuity, and industry were expended 
in efforts only to promote the interests of the League in a purely partisan 
sense. 

In addition to all these, the League placed at the service of the majority 
of the committee an indefinite number of messengers to serve their pro¬ 
cess and do the bidding of the officers of the committee and of the other 
attorneys and agents of the League. The country, the House, and all 
impartial and just minded men may readily infer from these facts the 
spirit, intent, interested and partisan motives which have served the 
majority of the committee and have presided over the preparation of 
this case for the League. 

How well calculated these facts are to defeat and pervert the high and 
honorable object, and to destroy utterly the fairness and judicial char¬ 
acter of such an investigation as this no man of intelligence can for a 


102 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


moment fail to see. These interested agents have expended boundless 
industry to discover , or to secure men to swear to, frauds, or alleged frauds, 
committed in all parts of the State by democrats, but none to discover 
or make proof of frauds committed anywhere by republicans. The truth 
of this statement is amply and significantly vindicated upon almost every 
page of the testimony taken by the committee. The majority in their 
report appear to have been unable to resist or rebuke this partisan animus , 
and, with respect, we submit that it uniformly colors and discredits their 
conclusions. 

THE REPUBLICAN SUBORNATION OFFICE IN JERSEY CITY AND WILLIAM 

P. WOOD. 

This man seems, during the labors of this committee in New York, to 
have wholly forgotten his obligations and duties as a hired detective in 
the service of the treasury of the United States. He organized an 
office in Jersey City, in Taylor’s Hotel, in room No. 18, with a corps of 
short-hand reporters, all undoubtedly in the employment and under the 
pay of the League, to which his agents in New York in the like service 
sent numerous persons, fished up from the sinks and cesspools of de¬ 
moralization, vice, and crime in that great city, who were there and by 
him and his assistants examined $ induced by promises of protection 
from punishment and of pecuniary reward to make statements of one 
kind or another, which were there written down, and then sent back to 
New York and handed to the committee as the basis or guide for the 
chairman in the examination of the witnesses. Numerous witnesses, 
both republicans and democrats, testify that these persons, the general 
class, were the most debased of common criminals in the city of New 
York. Their testimony on almost every page and line bears the most 
ample and fatal ear-marks and indicia of falsehood and viciousness. It 
is the most solemn conviction of the undersigned that a large majority 
of the witnesses whose testimony was taken by the committee were 
totally unworthy, upon any principle of law or rational conduct, of 
belief or respect. 

We give the following examples and illustrations of the business done 
at Mr. Wood’s office in Jersey City: 

Louis Campbell testifies, at page 560, as follows: 

At the time I made the statement at Taylor’s Hotel in Jersey City I was what you may 
call drunk. Whiskey was bought for me and I was made drunk. * * I was plied with 

liquor before the statement was made. It was represented to me that nothing would be 
done about it, and when I got back to New York I got $10 in money for going over and 
making this statement. 

6038. Q. What statement are you referring to now ?—A. The statement, they say, is here 
that I made in New Jersey. 

6039. Q. When did you go over to make a statement in New Jersey ?—A. I was over in 
New Jersey on Saturday. 

Michael Edwards testifies, at page 572, as follows: 

6228. I gave my name here as George Nelson. What I testified to the other day was 
that I went to a place in Wooster street and Crosby and voted several times, and it was an 
untruth. 

6229. Q. What you swore to the other day was an untruth ?—A. An untruth. I was told 
I would get paid for it, and receive the sum of $10—$5 for making a statement in Jersey 
City, and $5 for the statement here. 

John Keating testifies, at page 578, as follows : 

6313. Question. State if you know of any combination or conspiracy in this city or in 
Brooklyn organized with a view to induce persons to give false testimony before this com¬ 
mittee in relation to repeating; if so, state what you know about it.—Answer. I was pass- 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


103 


mg by and I saw the policemen around, and I saw some excitement, and I walked in, and I 
heard the investigation committee was here investigating frauds ; and I was standing near 
the door and Mr. James Ward was coming up, and we got to talking about how dull the 
times was, and a man came up (Colonel Wood) and put his hand on our shoulders and said, 
“Everything is right, boys,” and took us aside, and he said for us to come in here and give 
testimony that we repeated the democratic ticket on the 3d of November, and he said he 
would be a friend of ours, and for us not to go back on him like the rest of them did. He 
gave me $10—$5 apiece—to divide amongst me and Mr. Ward, and bid us good day; and 
Mr. Wood went off and I gave Mr. Ward $5, and here is the $5 now, sir; I have got it in 
my pocket yet, [laying a $5 bill upon the table. ] 

James Ward, at page 573, testifies substantially to tbe facts proven 
by Mr. Keating. 

J. R Tapper, the stenographer of Colonel Wood’s Jersey City office, 
testifies as follows, at page 560, concerning something he saw in that 
office: 

7306. Q. WhQ examined the witnesses over there?—A. I examined most of them. 

7308. Q. Did any of them state to you that they were thieves and pickpockets ?—A. One 
man, in answer to a question of Colonel Wood, as to what his occupation w’as, said, “I 
steal for a living when I get a chance.” 

7309. Q. Was his statement taken ?—A. His statement was taken. 

7310. Q. And forwarded over here?—A. I suppose so. The name he gave was Harris. 

7311. Q. Colonel Wood made no objection to taking his testimony ?—A. No, sir. 

Samuel Baker, another witness from the Jersey City (Wood’s) office, 
testifies as follows, at pp. 554, 555: 

5960. Q. What money did you get ? A. I got $5 for the statement, and $5 after I was 
sworn here. 

5961. Q. Where did you get the first $5 ?—A. I got the first $5 in Jersey City. 

5962. Q. Whereabouts ?—A. In a liquor store there. 

5963. Q. Who gave it to you ?—A. Dorans; he said he got it from Colonel Wood. 

5964. Q. Who gave you the $5 after you had testified here ?—A. Dorans ; he said he got 
that from Colonel Wood also. 

5965. Q. When you went over to Jersey City, whom did you see there ?—A. I saw Colonel 
Wood and two short-hand writers. 

John Norton, another witness, testifies, at page 570, as follows: 

6174. Q. State what money you got for making your statement the other day, and from 
whom you got it.—A. I received $5 in Jersey City. 

6175. Q. For the statement you made the other day ?—A. Yes, sir; I also received $5 here 
at this hall. 

6176. Q. State who got you to go over to Jersey City.—A. A young man by the name of 
Samuel Baker; he received the money from Colonel Wood; he gave me $5 to go over there, 
and $5 for giving my evidence here. 

We could give numerous others, but it is not necessary to do so. 

It is a remarkable and important fact that Mr. Wood, although in the 
immediate vicinity of the committee all the time it was in New York 
city, never sought an opportunity, under oath or otherwise, to explain 
these things, and his conduct in connection with these scoundrels and 
perjurers ; and the managers of the case for the League never dared to 
put him upon the witness stand. The reason is obvious. His conduct 
and true character in these matters further appear in other portions of 
this report. 

NATURALIZATION, AND THE INCREASED NUMBER NATURALIZED IN 1868. 

A very ingenious but scarcely fair attempt is made in the report of 
the majority to create the impression that the number of aliens natural¬ 
ized in the city of New York during the year 1868 was enormously large 
as compared with the 12 years next previous. One of the means by 
which such a disproportion is apparently shown is by taking the average 
number naturalized yearly during the 12 years as the basis for compari¬ 
son. This average was 9,207. How unfair it is to take that number 


104 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


will be made manifest by giving the total number naturalized in each of 
the 12 years, which we repeat as stated in the majority report: 


1856—Total naturalizations- 

.... 16,493 

1862- 

-Total naturalizations- 

.... 2,414 

1857. 


.... 8,991 

1863. 


.... 2,633 

1858. 


.... 6,769 

1864. 


.... 12,171 

1859. 

.do. 

.... 7,636 

1865. 

.do. 


1860. 


.... 13,556 

1866. 


.... 13,023 

1861. 


.... 3,903 

1867. 


.... 15,476 


It appears that the number naturalized during the years 1861, 1862, 
and 1863, when the war was in full progress, was much smaller than in 
any of the other nine years. The total number for the three years was 
8,950, which was only about the ordinary number for a single year. By 
taking the average number, the small naturalization during these three 
years is made to reduce the apparent number naturalized in each of the 
other nine years, while the number who omitted naturalization then 
have doubtless almost all become citizens since, thus increasing the num¬ 
ber in subsequent years. The reason why the number naturalized during 
the war was comparatively small is well known. If a man became a 
citizen he was liable to be drafted, while, if willing to be a soldier, he 
volunteered without waiting to be naturalized, and obtained a bounty. 
The effect of this cause in reducing naturalizations is shown by the fact 
that notwithstanding the small naturalization of the three years next 
preceding 1864, and the excitement which attended the contest between 
Lincoln and McClellan, the number naturalized that year was less than 
in 1860 or in 1866. 

Another means by which the increase in 1868 is made larger is by 
overstating the number naturalized in 1868. It is put by the committee 
at 41,112. That number is obtained by including 27,897 as the number 
naturalized in the superior court. This number was given by a young 
man named Westlake, who was directed by the clerk of the court to 
count the naturalizations, as the committee had requested him to fur¬ 
nish them with the total number. The number was not only proved 
afterwards by the deputy clerk to be over 9,000 too large, but the per¬ 
sons who examined all the papers in the court on behalf of the commit¬ 
tee, or the Loyal League, reported to the committee that the number 
naturalized in October, 1868, was 8,654 less than the number stated by 
Mr. Westlake for that month. Deducting 8,654 from the total of 41,112, 
we have 32,458 as the total number naturalized in 1868. That the ma¬ 
jority should have adhered to the larger number in face of these facts is 
not calculated to produce a favorable impression as to the fairness of their 
report. 

Another reason of the increased naturalization since 1865 is that, in 
that year, the republican legislature of New York, in the hope of re¬ 
ducing the democratic vote, which was fast becoming a majority in the 
State, passed a law that no adopted citizen should be registered as a 
voter in any incorporated city or village unless he exhibited his certifi¬ 
cate of naturalization to the registering officers. As these, in each dis¬ 
trict of the city of New York, were supposed to consist of two republi¬ 
cans and two democrats, all of whom were appointed by a board of 
police then composed of three republicans and only one democrat, the 
law was administered with great rigor. In consequence large numbers 
of adopted citizens who had been voters for a number of years found 
themselves disfranchised, because they could not produce their papers. 
So, also, the sons of many such, naturalized while minors by the citizen¬ 
ship of their fathers, were disfranchised because unable to produce the 
certificates of their fathers. As a general rule, all these persons have 

















ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


105 


been naturalized again, as tlie easiest way to get over the difficulty, and 
they have largely increased the numbers of naturalizations during the 
years 1866, 1867, and 1868. 

Nor is this all. The aggressive character of the republican legislation 
in the State of New York towards the city, and especially towards its 
inhabitants if of foreign birth, has awakened a feeling of resentment; 
and of late, year after year, thousands have come forward and secured 
citizenship for the purpose of aiding to vote the republicans out of power, 
who, under a wise and more liberal policy, might have remained indif¬ 
ferent. 

New York city is also the centre of naturalization, as it is in other 
respects, for many of the surrounding counties of the State of New 
York. In most of these counties the county seat is inland, and it is 
easier and less expensive for a large majority of the inhabitants of Rich¬ 
mond, Queens, Westchester, Putnam, and Rockland counties, in the 
State of New York, to go to the city of New York for any business than 
it is to go to the county towns of the counties in which they respect¬ 
ively reside. Besides, in such counties the courts are seldom open, while 
in New York they are seldom closed. This tendency to go to New York 
for naturalization has doubtless been increased by the additional rail¬ 
road facilities provided within the last few years. 

But it does not need such justification to prove that the number natu¬ 
ralized in 1868 was reasonable in comparison with former years. It will 
be seen by the total naturalization in each year given above that in 
each of the presidential years, 1856,1860, and 1864, the number natural¬ 
ized was, as near as need be, at least double the naturalization of the 
year immediately preceding or immediately succeeding. So, also, in 1868, 
the total naturalization, 32,458, was about double that of the year 1867, 
and less than double that of 1856, against which no complaint has ever 
been made. No more conclusive vindication of the number naturalized 
is needed than that it was less than double the number admitted to have 
been fairly naturalized in 1856, twelve full years previous. 

Complaint is made, however, because only about one-tenth of the num¬ 
ber naturalized in 1868 went through the court of common pleas. This 
complaint is of such trifling importance as hardly to deserve refutation. 
Three thousand one hundred and forty-five were naturalized in that 
court in 1868, against 4,662 in 1864. One good reason for the preference 
of the other courts is that they were held much nearer to the naturali¬ 
zation offices of the respective political parties—a fact in itself amply 
sufficient to determine the preference of parties desiring to be natural¬ 
ized. A more conclusive reason, however, is found in the fact testified 
to by Mr. Janus, the clerk of that court, that they did not naturalize 
u rapidly enough.” There were but three judges to that court, and they 
could only attend to naturalization between the hours of 10 and 11 a. ul 
and 3 and 4 p. in., while in the other courts there were nine judges, sev¬ 
eral of whom woidd attend to the business at the same time, and hold 
court, if necessary, until late in the evening. That the supreme court 
did not issue naturalization certificates prior to 1868 is of even less 
importance, in view of the fact that it was both the right and duty of 
that court to admit to citizenship all applicants who were duly proved 
to be qualified. Only those who are at heart opposed to admitting per¬ 
sons of foreign birth to the inestimable privilege of American citizenship 
will object that the necessary facilities were afforded to applicants for 
the privilege, or complain that, when there was a large number apply¬ 
ing, the judges sought to expedite rather than delay business, and 
incommoded themselves by holding court until late hours that they might 


106 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


aid those who, while seeking to become American citizens, could not for¬ 
get that their families were dependent upon the earnings of their daily 
labor. 

It is said very truly that one judge passed upon over 900 applications 
in a day. Why should he not have done so, if he were patriotic and 
kind-hearted enough to endure the fatigue? Any good business man, 
quick in mind and movement, and of prompt habits, who will practice 
the little that is to be done in such cases so that he can do it with des¬ 
patch, can easily pass upon two applications in each minute, on an aver¬ 
age, and consider them separately. At this rate he could pass upon 
960 in eight hours. The judge who is said to have been so fast in natur¬ 
alizing persons is a man of unequalled quickness in the despatch of all 
the business of his court. 

Many of these objections may seem plausible because the methods of 
doing business in the New York courts are not generally known. It is 
usual for a judge there to give his fiat for the entry of an order by 
merely writing the initial letters of his name; and that was all the 
writing a judge had to do in passing upon naturalization papers, and 
that he could do while examining the witness. All the oaths may be 
administered in all court business by the clerk, being merely done in 
the presence of the court; and the oath of allegiance could be adminis¬ 
tered to the applicant by the clerk while the witness was being examined 
by the judge. So also in respect to the record of the naturalizations. A 
labored attempt is made in the majority report to show that the New 
York naturalizations are illegal because a record was not made up at the 
time in each case. It is not the practice of the courts in that city to 
make up their records immediately. The material for the record is pro¬ 
vided at the time, and it is then made up at convenience. The press of 
business in these courts will not wait for slow formalities. Records are 
almost universally made up subsequently to the proceedings; but when 
made up they are records, and have all the authority attaching to 
records and can only be impeached in the manner provided by law. 

The point most strenuously urged in the majority report is the great 
number of what are called minor applications that were issued. These 
are issued without any previous declaration of intention to become citi¬ 
zens, to persons who arrived in the country before they became eighteen 
years of age. The advantage which this form of naturalization has is, 
that it can be accomplished at once; while if the party was older than 
eighteen when he arrived in the country he cannot be naturalized until 
the expiration of two years after the time at which he is proved in open 
court to have declared his intention to become a citizen. Nearly all the 
naturalizations in the supreme court were upon applications as minors. 
In the superior court less than eighty per cent, of the naturalizations 
were of that class. Eighty per cent, does not seem disproportionate 
w T hen we remember that Mr. Cook, of the republican committee, who 
had charge of the republican naturalization office, testified that about 
sixty per cent, of their naturalizations were of the same kind. 

The number of minor applications was necessarily large. Persons 
who had voted for years, having been made citizens while they were 
minors by the naturalization of their fathers, were denied registration 
in 1865 because they could not produce certificates of the naturalization 
of their fathers. In such a case the re-naturalization of the father 
would not help the son, because, having ceased to be a minor he would 
not be reached by it. The only recourse was for the son to be natural¬ 
ized, and this could be done immediately because he was under 18 wiien 
he arrived in the country. In this w r ay the proportion of minor appli¬ 
cations was largely increased. 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


107 


Nevertheless there is no doubt that many fraudulent naturalizations 
were obtained from the courts, and that they were mostly in pre¬ 
tended minor cases. These were so obtained by perjury and forgery. 
The judges were imposed upon. We shall consider the manner in which 
this was done more fully under another head, to which reference is here 
made. 

The tables prepared by the Loyal League agents, after an examina¬ 
tion of the applications singly, only show 2,740 cases in the supreme 
court, and 2,379 in the superior court, in which they claimed that the 
witnesses belonged to the gang of common swearers. These 5,128 cases 
undoubtedly include all the fraudulent naturalizations and a very large 
number of honest ones. The number of specific cases of fraud of which 
any proof was offered is very inconsiderable, and it was proved that 
the number of those who voted was very small in proportion to the 
number who held fraudulent certificates. Most persons who had fraud¬ 
ulent or even doubtful certificates either failed to claim a vote or were 
driven off by the inspectors and police. 

It is undoubtedly fair to assume that a spirit of hostility to persons of 
foreign birth, and of opposition to their free admission to the enjoyment 
of citizenship and suffrage, had much to do in the origin and conduct 
of this investigation. Why this hostility? Is it because this class of 
citizens too generally vote the democratic ticket! It cannot be said 
that they do not make good citizens. They are generally orderly, indus¬ 
trious, and obedient to law. They bring to our country untold millions 
of values and wealth. They are generally frugal, thrifty, and self-sup¬ 
porting. They ask and receive no donations of money from Congress to 
relieve the distresses of their poor. They ask the guardianship and 
pecuniary support of no Freedmens 7 Bureau. They contribute in taxes 
a large proportion of the revenues that support all our governments. 
They contribute most effectively, and to a vast extent, in money, muscle, 
industry, talents, mechanical skill, and executive ability, to the devel¬ 
opment of all our great material interests, and to the resulting increase 
in our national values, resources, prosperity, and happiness. 

In every hour of national peril or emergency they have always been 
prompt and effective in their support of the government. During the 
late war they were everywhere faithful and loyal, and gave more than 
their full proportion of volunteers and other soldiers to the armies of the 
Union. The great city of New York alone gave, during that fearful 
struggle to support the government, near a hundred thousand men of 
foreign birth or parentage. They have at all times given the highest 
evidence of devotion to our institutions. Impelled by the love of them, 
and the desire for the freedom which they are intended to secure, they 
left their homes and severed the attachments of their nativity and early 
lives, and sought identification in allegiance, interests, and liberty with 
us. 

It ill becomes the republican party to deny them these privileges. 
They have advanced the negro by a single leap from slavery to suffrage. 
Let the Irish and German immigrant be treated with at least equal lib¬ 
erality. The most effectual guard against fraud in naturalizations and 
voting is to throw open the door of welcome to them. Let every man 
who lias resided a year upon our soil, with the bona fide intention to 
acquire citizenship, become an American citizen and share in all the 
rights and duties of a citizen; or, if it be preferred, let him be natural¬ 
ized upon six months 7 residence, and become a voter six months after¬ 
wards. If the suffrage everywhere follows a year’s residence, and the 
elections are held on the same day throughout the United States, we 


108 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK, 


shall hear less of election frauds. This is the greatest measure of reform, 
as well as the noblest measure of justice. Let it be accomplished. 

In a far different spirit is the proposition of the majority report, to 
prohibit naturalizations by the supreme and the superior courts in the 
city of New York while any of the present judges remain on the bench, 
or, in other words, during eight years in one court and six in the other. 
Among the judges of those courts are men who are without superiors 
in the Union for high integrity of character. The attempt to put such 
a stigma upon them will excite the universal indignation of their fellow- 
citizens, while the real object sought, the prevention of naturalizations 
in that great city, will signally fail. The democratic vote will roll up 
faster even than it has under the proscriptive legislation of the repub¬ 
licans in the State. Organizations will be formed of adopted citizens to 
secure the naturalization, day by day, in the court of common pleas, of 
all their countrymen who have resided five years in the country; and 
those who are now lashed to desperation by 70,000 democratic majority 
in that city will find that they have aroused the lion in his strength 
when they hear a majority verging upon a hundred thousand thundering 
about their ears. 

It cannot be pretended by the most fanatical of political bigots that 
the emigrants coming annually by hundreds of thousands to our shores 
are not, in intelligence, industry, morality, capacity for self-government, 
and even loyalty, immeasurably superior to the emancipated negroes of 
the south, and their labor infinitely more intelligent, skilful, and pro¬ 
ductive. Experience lias shown most clearly that these emigrants can 
be safely intrusted with citizenship and its most important franchises. 
They have never proven false to the country or its institutions. The 
colored man in the south, in his natural dulness and kindness, and 
original lack of individuality, or personal power or enterprise, steadily 
adhered to the fortunes and interests of his rebellious master, and most 
materially contributed to sustain and continue that sanguinary struggle. 
Yet he is made a citizen and given suffrage. 

The admitted fact that emigrants usually seek their homes in the 
northern and western States can afford no sound objection to the pro¬ 
posed change. To dignify intelligent labor by confering the rights of 
citizenship, and to identify the affections and interests of those who toil 
with the institutions and people of a State, is as important to Pennsyl¬ 
vania as it can be to South Carolina. 

INCREASED VOTE IN NEW YORK CITY IN 1S68. 

The chief desire of the majority in the testimony taken and in their 
report seems to have been the injury of the democratic party, by showing 
that the vote in the city of New York was both excessive and fraudulent. 
Palling to do this in detail, an attempt was made to cover up the failure 
by the introduction of 13 pages of tables, (pp. 352 to 365 of testimony,) 
prepared by a Mr. Marston. What the tables amount to, except as a 
monument to the industry of the compiler, no human ingenuity can 
devise. So far as they have any pertinency to this investigation, their 
value is destroyed by adopting the State census of 1865 as the basis of 
comparison. That census was taken under the direction of a republi¬ 
can secretary of state, and the fact that the population of the city of 
New York and the adjoining counties was understated, for the purpose 
of reducing their representation in the State legislature, is so notorious 
that u Depew’s census ” has become a by-word among all parties. No 
one in New York professes to believe in its correctness. The mere fact 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


109 


that the population of that great and growing city, which was 813,6G9 
by the United States census of 1800, was reduced by Depew’s census of 
1805 to 720,380, a loss of 87,283, k sufficient in itself to prove the worth¬ 
lessness of the return. 

The first of Mr. Marston’s tables is a statement of the number of men 
enrolled in the city of New York in 1803, preparatory to the draft. It 
might be thought that any reference to that enrolment would be so 
unpleasant to republican ears that this table would have been omitted. 
That enrolment was made by men who had only one idea, and that was 
to make it large. Mechanics were enrolled where they lived, and again 
at their shops, and often where they happened to be for a few hours 
working at a job. Those who made the enrolment even hung around 
bar-rooms and took down the names of those who came in to drink. To 
such an extent was this matter carried that when the draft was made 
many persons were each drawn two, three, or four times. This was the 
severest kind of “ repeating” ever known in the United States. The 
fact was so conclusively proven that the government repudiated the 
enrolment and made a reduction of 20,000 in the quota of men the city 
was required to furnish. Only one reason can be guessed for including 
this table. Mr. Marston, who says he is a democrat, and made democratic 
speeches during the campaign, but was employed by the Loyal League 
committee to prepare the tables, probably thought that this particular 
table would be a good satire upon the actions of the League in origi¬ 
nating this investigation. If there were 151,052 citizens and persons 
who had declared their intention to become citizens, between the ages 
of 20 and 45, in 1863, it seems absurd to doubt that there must have 
been many more than 156,078 citizens entitled to vote five years after¬ 
wards, as the latter included all those over as well as those under 45 
years of age. 

Tables of very great value, prepared by Mr. Henry E. Sweetser, of New 
York, were also put in evidence, (pages 422 to 425 of the testimony.) These 
are very pertinent and clear in the results they demonstrate, one of which 
is that the proportion of votes to population is not so large in the city of 
New York as it is in the rest of the State, or in the States of Connecticut, 
New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Tke only reasonable test of the vote 
in New York is a comparison with the vote of Philadelphia, In New 
York the vote in 1868 was 156,078, and the population in 1860 was 
813,669, being one vote to every five and a fraction fa ) of population, 
and in Philadelphia the vote was 116,158 to 562,529 of population, being 
one vote to every four and a fraction (^y cf population. As Philadel¬ 
phia gave a majority for Grant we have no outcry about its large vote. 
Perhaps it would be well to have a committee of investigation, as this 
committee would not allow the minority to introduce evidence that 
republican “repeaters” were sent from New York to Philadelphia. 

With a singular one-sightedness the majorityof the committee can 
only look at the increased vote in New York as a democratic major¬ 
ity. They never apply their percentage to the Grant column, or allow 
it a place in their tables. In 1866 the vote in New York for Fenton 
was 33,492, and in 1868, for Grant, 47,748, being an increase of over 42 
per cent.; while the vote in 1866 for Hoffman was 80,667, and in 1868, 
for Seymour, 108,033, being an increase of only 34 per cent. If the 
increased vote were a sin, on whose shoulders rests the greater burden ? 

There was indeed abundant material in the city of New York for a very 
large number of naturalized aliens. Even “ Depew’s census,” which noto¬ 
riously understated the population of the city, gives 151,838 as the num¬ 
ber of unnaturalized aliens in that city in 1865, after the close of the war. 


110 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


This was more than one-fifth of the entire population of the city. As 
more than three years had elapsed last October since that census was 
taken, but a very small portion of that number of aliens could then have 
been less than five years in the country. The mere statement of the fact 
that there was this abundant material for naturalization, should be suf¬ 
ficient in itself to silence all cavilling as to the number naturalized, 
except so far as the naturalization was shown to be fraudulent. 

Many reasons may be given why the democratic vote should have 
increased largely in the city of New York, but none for any considerable 
increase of the republican. Yet the republican vote was very largely 
increased. The testimony taken in the contested election case of Dodge 
m. Brooks, shows that thousands of voters in districts overwhelmingly 
democratic, who attended the polls $o vote at the presidential election 
in 1864, were shut out by the delay in receiving votes purposely prac¬ 
ticed by the republican inspectors. In the few republican districts, the 
democrats allowed the republicans to vote without delay, but for the 
strong democratic districts, republican inspectors were carefully selected, 
who were utter strangers in the districts to which they were respectively 
sent, and who had the assurance to challenge systematically for the mere 
purpose of delay. From one to two hundred votes in a district, voting 
ten democrats to one republican, were kept waiting all day, and the 
polls closed with a like crowd in attendance, waiting to vote and losing 
their votes. More than double the number of votes were taken in a 
republican district than were allowed to be polled in a democratic dis¬ 
trict. It was estimated at the time by well-informed politicians that 
General McClellan was in that manner robbed of at least 10,000 votes 
in the city of New York; more than enough to have changed the result 
in the State. This opinion is fully justified by the sworn testimony to 
which we have referred, and which may be found in the printed docu¬ 
ments of the 39th Congress. 

The majority in their report indicate their disapprobation that inspec¬ 
tors were appointed in the several election districts who were unac¬ 
quainted with the voters. It is gratifying to have them thus rebuke the 
infamous course heretofore pursued by their political friends. When the 
inspectors were required by law to register the voters they knew in the 
district, as was formerly the case, it is notorious in that city that the 
republicans sent inspectors to districts in which they were unacquainted, 
so that they should not be able to register voters who did not appear in 
person. After this law was changed so that voters were required to 
appear in person, the republicans continued to appoint inspectors who 
were strangers in the district, in order that they might challenge more 
freely. A man has to be very shameless to challenge without provoca¬ 
tion another whom he knows to be a legal voter. Strangers have less 
scruple. The republican inspectors were therefore generally appointed 
for districts far distant from the places of their residence. The repub¬ 
lican legislature amended the law for the apparent purpose of permit¬ 
ting such practices; and to such an extent was this dishonest challeng¬ 
ing carried, that the democratic common council were compelled to make 
more than 100 new districts in order to foil these desperate partisans, 
and secure to the people the more certain exercise of their right of suf¬ 
frage. All such schemes for keeping out legal votes are as dishonest as 
the polling of illegal votes, and we heartily join with the majority in 
rebuking the plan by which such wrongs have been accomplished. 

One reason why the democratic vote has been largely increased in 
New York, is the constant emigration there has been to that city from 
the southern States. During the war true Unionists moved north, 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


Ill 


because they loved the old Union and would notlielp destroy it. These 
vote the democratic ticket because they are opposed to negro domina¬ 
tion, and the reconstruction policy of Congress. Those whose Unionism 
was based upon dollars and cents lingered around the army and fattened 
at the flesh-pots. Since the war was ended, others have moved north 
because they found a longer residence at the south, in its present deplora¬ 
ble condition, unendurable. Both of these numerous classes have largely 
settled in New York, and aided by thousands to roll up its immense 
democratic vote. 

Another reason for the increased democratic vote in New York, is the 
manner in which that city has been treated by the republican legislature 
of the State. In 1865 a iaw was passed that in incorporated cities and 
villages no naturalized citizen not on the poll list of the next preceding 
election should be registered unless he produced his certificate of natu¬ 
ralization. Although this shut out thousands of naturalized voters, it 
did not reduce the democratic vote in the city as largely as the repub¬ 
lican managers expected. So the next year, 1866, they passed a law 
applicable only to the cities of New York and Brooklyn, by which, in 
those cities, no person could be registered unless he appeared before the 
inspectors in person. This proscriptive legislation, and other laws of 
like character, especially the excise law, roused the indignation of the 
people irrespective of party. At the next election, although no Presi¬ 
dent was to be chosen, 3,779 more votes were polled than in 1864; but 
this did not show the democratic gain, for while Hoffman for governor 
received 6,768 more votes than McClellan did for President, Fenton 
received 3,194 less than Lincoln. This feeling of hostility has been 
steadily growing ever since, as shown in the large vote of last fall. 
Nothing is more difficult than to repress the spirit of a great people, 
who not only “know their rights but dare maintain them.” 

Nothing is alleged in the majority report calculated to break the force 
of the facts we have stated except a suggestion that New York sent 
a great many soldiers to the war, many of whom died and others majr 
have settled at the south. It is too true that many of them died, but 
very few settled at the south. Only a few of the officers joined the grand 
army of carpet-baggers, and they were selected by the republican power 
and were mostly republicans. The fact is that the democratic vote in 
New York city has been increased by the returned soldier. The majority 
of the committee are therefore able to state no reason why the demo¬ 
cratic vote in New York should not have been increased, but we have 
shown conclusive reasons why it should have been. 

THE TAMMANY NATURALIZATION COMMITTEE. 

The only recognized naturalization committee of the democratic party 
in the city of New York, was appointed by Tammany Hall, and presided 
over by Judge Moses D. Gale, a man of known purity of character. 

Beside Judge Gale the committee consisted of P. H. Keenan, of the 
7th ward; S. McGrane, 20th ward; Alexander Ward, of the 22d ward; 
Anthony Miller, of the 13th ward; and Hugh O’Brien, of the 14th ward. 

The committee had their office at the corner of Centre street and Try on 
Bow, (not at No. 6 Centre street.) A Mr. Mulligan had charge of this office 
with some 20 employes. He (Gale) “employed them as they had always 
been employed before, to be in attendance there to fill up naturalization 
blanks for parties who desired to procure their naturalization papers 
under the auspices of Tammany Hall—in other words, to facilitate the 
naturalization of all persons who were entitled to get out their papers, 


112 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


and whose design and intention it was to support the democratic candi¬ 
dates at the approaching election.” (Page 310.) 

Further on (p. 311) Mr. Gale swears: 

I know of no instance of any fraud having been committed. I know of no instance in 
which a false or fraudulent paper has been taken out. 

On the same page Judge Gale swears as follows concerning the Bosen- 
berg office at No. 6 Centre street: 

It is a place in Centre street, above where the Tammany Hall office was. Mr. Rosenberg 
had nothing to do with our office. I did not employ him, but if he came in at any time ask¬ 
ing for a few blanks, as I believe he did on one or two occasions, he got them. 

3344. Q. After the Rosenberg case, did you use any further efforts or give any directions 
to avoid the frauds with which he was charged, in connection with any committee over which 
you had control?—A. As soon as I heard of that Rosenberg affair I went to the rooms and 
called Mr. Mulligan and the other men and said : “ Boys, has there been anything going on 
here contrary to the directions I have given?” They said : “ No, sir; nothing of the kind.” 
I said: “My design has been to conduct this thing so as to have it entirely satisfactory to 
Tammany Hall, and to do my duty as a member of the committee. You know what my 
instructions were. If any of you have done wrong, or know of anything wrong, let me 
know and I will stop it at once.” 

Concerning tlie issue of “red tickets” by the Tammany Hall commit¬ 
tee, the following testimony of Judge Gale will be found on page 313: 

3360. Q. Did you furnish to the German naturalization committee those red tickets ?— 
A. I presume they were furnished ; I did not refuse any one the tickets ; they were value¬ 
less until they got into the hands of the clerks of the courts ; and then they became a charge 
against the committee. 

Samuel J. Tilden testifies, at page 250, in answer to interrogatories, as 
follows: 

2746. Q. You have stated your official connection with the party machinery during the 
last political campaign: I ask you whether you have heard through the public press, or 
otherwise, of certain prosecutions being instituted against one Benjamin B. Rosenberg, for 
the procurement and use of fraudulent naturalization papers ?—A. Through the public press 
I became advised of there being such a prosecution ; I did not read the testimony. 

2747. Q. Do you know anything about the place, No. 6 Centre street, where Rosenberg 
did business ?—A. I do not. I never heard of him until I read of him in the newspapers on 
that occasion. 

2748. Q. Did you have any knowledge, personally or officially, that such a man existed 
there, or that there was such an office acting in the interest of the democratic party ?—A. I 
did not. 

William M. Tweed, a prominent member of the Tammany organization, 
testifies as follows, at page 266: 

2814. Q. Do you know anything of this room, No. 6 Centre street ?—A. No, sir ; I do not. 

2815. Q. Do you know whether that was the office of Moses D. Gale or of his committee ?— 
A. I am confident in my own mind it was not. 

There is not one line of testimony to show that the democratic organ¬ 
izations in the city of New York were, directly or indirectly, parties to, 
cognizant of, or in any way responsible for the frauds in procuring 
naturalization papers. The testimony, fairly weighed and taken together, 
conclusively shows that these frauds were, all perpetrated by lawless and 
irresponsible individuals, upon their own account and for personal gain 
in the procurement or sale of such papers, and without any reference to 
the success or defeat of any political party. 

NUMBER SIX CENTRE STREET. 

Emanuel S. Goldstein, (pp. G9 to 77,) a clerk of the German naturali¬ 
zation committee, testifies as follows about the naturalization office at 
No. 6 Centre street: 

828. Q. You say you were employed by the general German naturalization committee'to 
aid, at No. 6 Centre street, in the preparation of naturalization papers ?—A. Yes, sir. 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


113 


829 Q. Who paid you for that service ?—A. The general German committee. 

890. Who is the chairman ?—A. Supervisor Hermann. 

840. Q. Did you ever administer an oath to a man who desired to be naturalized ?—A. 
No, sir. 

841. Q. Did you ever tell him he could be naturalized in any way, except by going to the 
court-house and appealing before the court ?—A. No, sir. 

Iii regard to the live fictitious names for which William Thomas 
Simms testifies at p. 12, that he obtained naturalization papers, Mr. 
Goldstein testifies (pp. 73, 74) as follows: 

880. Q. Were the names of these five persons put upon the list ?—A. That is what I do 
not know. Every name we put on that was naturalized. With their witnesses and 
from our place we sent them over to the court-room with their witnesses. 

805. Q. Or with somebody who pretended to be their witnesses ?—A. Yes, sir. I only 
knew that one name of the five—Antonio Gomez—who wanted to be naturalized. I am the 
one who wrote the application for him. Nobody was there but myself and Rosenberg, and 
I wrote the application for him. 

Charles Henry Liep, the proprietor of the saloon in which this office 
(6 Centre street) was located, testifies as follows, (p. 01): 

658. Q, Who were the other clerks besides Rosenberg ?—A. Augustus Hennet, Emanuel 
S. Goldstein, Major Bromson, Mr. Kemmerer, Ludwig Stumpf, and Dr. G. Johnson. 

659. Q. Do you know of any of them furnishing naturalization papers to persons without 
their having to go to court?—A. No, sir. 

660. Q. Did you see naturalization papers delivered to persons who came there for them ?— 
A. I did see them after they went to court with their witnesses and got examined. They 
would come over and have refreshments. 

676. Q. State whether the German democrats had another naturalization office where this 
kind of information could be had during these six weeks?—A. The only regular place was 
this place at No. 6 Centre street. It was said that they did a little business in No. 13 Centre 
street, but I could not say. I do not know how much business was done there. I do not 
know who gave them pow r er or authority there. 

677. Q. State generally whether during all these weeks you knew of any fraudulent natu¬ 
ralization papers being made or sent to anybody.—A. Not to the best of my knowledge. 

678. Q. Did you see anything that excited your suspicion that this man Rosenberg acted 
dishonestly—selling these papers, or making money to put it in his pocket?—A. No, sir; no 
money at all was handled there. 

679'. Q. Had he any right to take money from any of these persons ?—A. No; nobody was 
allowed to take money, and anybody reported for it would be discharged ; that was the bar¬ 
gain. The expenses were all to be paid by the party generally. 

683. Q. Was this naturalization committee elected by the German general committee, or 
was it appointed by the Tammany Society ?—A. It was elected by the Germans in our own 
body. We have our own headquarters. We organize ourselves every year, elect a chair¬ 
man, treasurer, vice-president, secretary, &c., and appoint all the committees for the year. 

684. Q. What did people come to Rosenberg for ?—A. To get naturalized. 

685. Q. Did he furnish to any that came there little red tickets ?—A. Yes, sir; for the fee 
of the clerk. That paid the costs. 

688. Q. Was the witness sworn down there at your place ?—A. O, no; the witness went 
to tlfe judge. The blanks were only filled up there, and signed Jby the applicant and the 
witness. 

Lewis Jonnassolm, another witness, testifies at pages 415-418, as fol¬ 
lows : 

I was employed three or four weeks by the German democratic union committee as one of 
the clerks of naturalization, in the office at No. 6 Centre street. I know of no person being 
furnished with naturalization who was not present in court and applied for them himself. 
The secretary of the German democratic naturalization committee employed me; this com¬ 
mittee is a branch of the executive committee who are elected in ward meetings ; I never 
informed this committee that there was anything wrong in Rosenberg’s transactions ; mem¬ 
bers of the committee would frequently visit the office and superintend generally the tran¬ 
saction of business. I do not know that there was anything to indicate to any member of the 
committee ivho visited the place that anything wrong was going on ; they did not pay much 
attention to the business; if they had examined it closely they might have discovered some¬ 
thing ; they never, to my knowledge, gave any direction in regard to fraudulent naturalizaT 
tion papers, and I have no knowledge that they knew that anything of the kind was going 
on. There is a general committee of the German democratic Union party; they are in close 
connection with Tammany Hall; the members of this general committee are elected b^ 
delegates from the 22 wards of the city ; this general committee is divided up into sub-co/ 
mittees, as, for instance, finance committee, naturalization committee, committee on print* 
The Tammany Hall naturalization committee had their headquarters at No. 1 Centre 

H. Eep. Com. 31— 8 


114 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


This committee paid me three dollars a day for my services, and when the night sessions 
commenced, one dollar for each night; my services as interpreter in the superior court I 
offered gratuitously to Judge McCunn. 

4174. We used the Tammany tickets. Mr. Hermann, chairman of the general naturaliza¬ 
tion committee, is also a member of the Tammany general committee. 

When a man came in Rosenberg would question him, ask him how long he had been in 
the country, and the like, and then ask him if he bad any witnesses with him. In some 
cases the man would say “ no,” and Rosenberg would say to him that he must have one. 
Rosenberg would often say to a man who had no witness, “Before I bite your finger there 
must be some sugar on it.” He meant by this, I suppose, before be would do anything for 
the man in relation to furnishing him with a witness, he must pay him. Rosenberg would 
then call a man by the name of Bernard Lockmann. He would then take the man into a 
back room, and after staying there a few minutes would come out, and then come to my desk 
and tell me to make out the application for this man; that he would be the witness in the 
case, and I would make out the application accordingly. He would then take the applica¬ 
tion and go away with the applicant. When Lockmann came out with the applicant the 
clerks would fill up the application with his name in as witness. I could not say whether 
that was all Lockmann’s business or not. I could not state how many papers Lockmann 
witnessed in this manner. I should think I prepared at least 2h of them. Rosenberg said 
to the persons coming in about his biting their finger with sugar on it to as many as about 50. 

It clearly appears that the naturalization committee of the German 
democratic organization, under whose direction the office at No. 0 Cen¬ 
tre street was established, were wholly innocent of the crimes there 
committed by Rosenberg, had no knowledge of them, did not in any 
way, directly or indirectly, connive at them, but distinctly and emphat¬ 
ically disapproved all such conduct, when it came to their knowledge, 
or they had reason to believe it existed. There is no testimony in the 
record that implicates any single member of the German or Tammany 
committees in participation or knowledge of the unlawful conduct of 
any of the naturalization brokers, who were mere individual adventurers 
and criminals. 

FRAUDULENT NATURALIZATION CERTIFICATES, AND HOW PROCURED. 

It is true that a considerable number of certificates of naturalization 
w T as obtained by fraud and perjury. In some instances it is no doubt 
true that men legally entitled to naturalization obtained it upon false 
grounds ; and in others, persons not entitled obtained it by perjury in 
themselves and their witnesses 5 and many secured it unlawfully by giv¬ 
ing their names to one or another of a "class of reckless and lawless 
scoundrels engaged in the business of selling their criminal consciences 
for money in the fraudulent procurement of such certificates, and the 
latter would, by themselves or others, personate in court both the appli¬ 
cant and his witness. But it is confidently alleged by us that it is 
impossible, upon a fair consideration of all the testimony, both in chief 
and on cross-examinations, and of the characters of the witnesses, to find 
that the aggregate number of naturalizations procured unlawfully in all 
the courts in the city of New York, in October last, exceeds from 1,000 
to 1,500. It is impossible, with any accuracy, to determine the precise 
number issued or obtained; but in the estimate we have made of the num¬ 
ber procured w T e have made a liberal allowance for individual cases not 
discovered and produced to the committee by the numerous and vigilant 
scavengers of the League. 

We invite especial attention to the important fact, which we desire to 
emphasize, that it is not , in our entire record , satisfactorily shown by 
credible or unimpeached testimony , that any one or more clerks , judges, 
or other officers of any of the courts , urns, with knowledge , directly or 
indirectly , a party to or participant in a single one of these frauds . 
No single witness testifies that any one of these officers in a single in¬ 
stance was corruptly and for any kind of personal advantage or gain 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


115 


concerned in any of those frauds. About 15 of the clerks, and two of 
the judges, and some other officers, all unimpeached, and so far as we 
know entirely unimpeachable, testify that no such frauds were committed 
with their knowledge, and that no certificates wefe obtained except 
upon the actual personal presence in court of an applicant and a witness 
at the same time in each case, and that it would have been impossible 
for any person to procure any certificate in any other way. But they 
all admit that it was possible for frauds to be put upon them by corrupt 
men and perjurers, without their knowledge. All courts and all tribu¬ 
nals for the investigation of truth are liable to be deceived and abused 
by such means. 

We will refer under this head, for illustration, to the testimony of three 
of the principal witnesses who attempted to make the impression that 
they perpetrated these frauds with the knowledge or connivance of the 
courts or officers. Every statement of these self-convicted criminals 
which questions the purity of purpose of the courts or their officers is 
overwhelmingly contradicted by the unimpeached testimony of numer¬ 
ous witnesses. 

In our judgment, the true solution of nearly all this fraudulent con¬ 
duct is to be found in the fact, apparent in most of the cases, that the 
parties engaged in it were men of the lowest and most abandoned char¬ 
acters, whose controlling aim in all they did was personal gain, without 
regard to either political party. It is probably true also that these 
reckless men were sometimes subsidized and to some extent used by a 
few of the most worthless and reckless of local ward politicians of both 
parties, and thus incidentally to the advantage or injury of the responsi¬ 
ble leaders of both. The criminals from whose class these naturalization 
brokers and those called “repeaters” come, are of the lowest order of de¬ 
based men, and their existence in any community is a very great public 
misfortune, and they supply bad elements to be used by other men only 
a little better than they, and thus become the source of the greatest evils 
to society, and interpose obstruction to the fair and honest working of a 
great deal of the political machinery which governs our country, and offer 
great temptations to corrupt the lower managers of both parties, and in 
fact often accomplish this result, to the great injury of both parties and of 
good government. These reflections are at once suggested and justified 
by the condition in New York and the testimony we have taken. These 
classes in every just sense are an unmitigated curse to all parties. If it 
were possible, they should be exorcised from every community; but it 
is not. Their presence is chargeable to no party. Obvious considera¬ 
tions attract them and give rise to them in all great cities. They are 
unlawfully used by all parties. Why they are not more rigorously con¬ 
trolled and punished is not satisfactorily explained. We believe it 
explicable, however, upon one theory alone: that in these crimes they 
are acting, to a greater or less extent, in the interests and service of the 
base and bad men of both parties, who, by combining for the protec¬ 
tion of their evil and lawless instruments, are able too often to prevent 
punishment. These men, who are thus potential, sometimes have rep¬ 
resentatives of their class in subordinate offices. The officers in the 
practical government of the city of New York who could be most effec¬ 
tive to restrain or punish these wicked men are the officers of elections 
and of the police. If these were honest, vigilant, and faithful, and 
would co-operate to that end, these crimes could, in a very great degree, 
be prevented. Let it be remembered here that all these officers are 
appointed under republican auspices , as we have elsewhere more fully 


116 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


shown. Persons who desire to reach just conclusions as to the respon¬ 
sibility in the premises can draw their own inferences. 

We now invite attention to the testimony of the three witnesses above 
referred to. 

James Collins testifies: 

7313. Q. State if you know anything about fraudulent naturalization papers.—A. Only 
in this way: I had been “knocking around” the City Hall, off and on. I got a situation 
there once in a while. At the time these naturalization papers were coming up Councilman 
Gillmore came and asked me if I would naturalize men for him. I said I would do so—the 
same as the rest of the men were doing. He asked me how that was. I told him to fetch 
me the men and I would get them naturalized for two dollars apiece. I said, “It you get 
the witnesses, I will make the application.” He said, “1 have got no witnesses; I want 
you to go witness.” Next day he came to me, and I told him I would naturalize for all that 
he wanted. I have naturalized from 500 to 700; that is, I said I knew the men so long. 
Some I had never seen before; some I had. That is all that I did in the naturalization 
business. 

7314. Q. For what political party did you do this?—A. The republican. 

7365. Q. Did you use red tickets ?—A. Yes. Councilman Gillmore furnished the tickets. 
He sometimes gave me white tickets and sometimes red. 

7366. Q. Most generally red ?—A. About equal, I guess. 

7389. Q. State if it was for republicans and in the interest of republicans that these cer¬ 
tificates of naturalization were got?—A. I suppose so. I suppose Mr. Gillmore would not 
be working the other way. 

7390. Q. Is he a republican ?—A. Yes, sir. 

7391. Q. You got in such men as he wanted?—A. Yes. 

7392. Q. How did it happen that you used the red ticket of the democrats? Did you 
commit a fraud upon them by getting their tickets ?—A. I do not know about that. 

7393. Q. You could not get them without getting them fraudulently by pretending that 
the persons to be naturalized were foreigners?—A. I never asked how r they got them. This 
republican gave them to me. Part of them were red tickets and part white. 

Testimony, pp. GG0 to GG4. 

Henry Lyle (page 460) swears that he was engaged during the months 
of September and October in fraudulently procuring naturalization papers 
for anybody that came along and wanted them, and would pay him from 
one to five dollars apiece for them. In this way he swears he obtained 
from GOO to 1,000. He sometimes acted as witness himself under assumed 
names, and sometimes personated both witness and applicant. He paid 
for these papers with u red tickets,” obtained at No. 1 Centre street. 
The witness on cross-examination could only recollect the names of nine 
persons for whom he obtained papers. The witness swore that he was 
a democrat, and in reply to further interrogatories answered as follows: 

4728. Q. You say you were serving the democratic party in doing this business ?—A. Yes, 
sir.. 

4729. Q. Did the democratic party secure your services ?—A. No, sir. 

4730. Q. Your services were volunteered then ?—A. Yes, sir. 

4731. Q. While you were serving the democratic party it appears that in a financial 
aspect you were serving yourself too?—A. That is it. 

4666. Q. What do you get for telling all this story?—A. I have not been promised one 
cent. 

4667. Q. Don’t you expect something?—A. I have not been promised anything. 

4668. Q. Don’t you expect anything?—A. I may expect something. 

4669. Q. From whom do you expect anything?—A. I do not know exactly whom I 
expect anything from ; I may expect something from Mr. Utley. 

4670. Q. Who is he?—A. He is in the custom-house. 

4671. Q. From whom else do you expect anything ?—A. Mr. Utley took me to Mr. White, 
a lawyer of this city ; I think he is connected with the Union League. 

4685. Q. Have you not been posted up by somebody as to your exemption from punish¬ 
ment for this testimony ; and if so by whom ?—A. Mr. White told me that I would be pro¬ 
tected ; he said the law protected me. 

4686. Q. Didn’t somebody read to you the law and tell you that you would not be pun¬ 
ished?—A. Yes, sir. 

4687. Q. Who was that who did so?—A. That gentleman standing there, (pointing to 
Mr. Davenport, clerk of the committee.) 

John McClusky, (pp. 716-717) evidently one of the most corrupt 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


117 


witnesses that appeared before the committee, swears that lie procured 
somewhere “near 10 or 40”fraudulent certificates of naturalization from 
the supreme court of the city and county of New York, obtaining- the 
papers through Mr. McKean, a deputy clerk of that court. 

7926. Q. Directly or indirectly, by words or signs, did you give him (McKean) to under¬ 
stand that the persons named in those applications represented persons who did not exist ?— 
A. I said nothing to him but what I have stated. I don’t know what he thought. 

7927. Q. Did you give him to understand that those were fraudulent papers that you de¬ 
sired him to put through ?—A. No, sir. 

7942. Q. Did Judge Barnard know that you were trying to practice fraud upon the court ?— 
A. I can’t tell what he thought. 

7943. Q. Do you know ?—A. I can’t tell that. 

7944. Q. Did you tell him or intimate to him that you were so engaged?—A. No, sir. 

NATURALIZATION BLANKS AND “RED TICKETS.” 

It is attempted by the majority to sustain certain theories and assump¬ 
tions concerning the number of fraudulent naturalizations by showing 
that very large numbers of blanks for applications and certificates were 
printed for the different courts. This fact neither establishes nor justi¬ 
fies the conclusion based upon it. The blanks for applications were 
distributed with great liberality to any persons of any party desiring 
them, and, it is safe to aver that, much the greater number of them were 
destroyed and never returned to any of the courts. They had no legal 
value to anybody until they were filled up and produced to the court by 
actual applicants for naturalization. 

Substantially the same is true of the “red tickets” used by the Tam¬ 
many organization, and the “white tickets” used by the republican com¬ 
mittees, for the temporary payment of the costs of naturalization to the 
clerks of the courts. These tickets were mere pledges by the respective 
political parties to the clerks, that, after the hurry of the business of 
naturalization was over, the respective organizations would pay to them 
the aggregate amounts of the tickets of the respective colors delivered 
to them by applicants for naturalization. It has been the custom of both 
parties in New York, for over 20 years, to conduct the business of natur¬ 
alization in this way. These tickets possess no value until they are 
delivered to the clerks by the persons seeking naturalization. The num¬ 
ber, therefore, either of blank applications or of tickets, is in no material 
degree important to this investigation. Testimony pp. 477, 311. 

For example, the witness Adams, a republican, who testifies at page 
160, in reply to a question on this subject, said : 

A. I had had knowledge of the operations of naturalization for some 30 years, and I knew 
that it was usual for political parties to send to clerks these tickets to pay the fees of natur¬ 
alization papers. 

But the majority attempt, by a strained and fanciful use of figures, 
based upon the vague testimony about the numbers of blanks of various 
kinds that were printed for the use of the courts, to convict the clerks 
of the supreme court of having fraudulently sent some 27,000 certificates 
of naturalization into other counties and remote parts of the State to be 
distributed to persons who never appeared in court to procure them. So 
grave a charge as this ought not to be made by any man against another 
without the most clear and satisfactory proof to support it. Yet, whilst 
the charge is made, not openly, but by indirection, insinuation, it is left 
without one line of decent , direct , or credible testimony lo support it. 
without one line of decent, direct, or credible testimony to support it. 
There is not a particle of testimony that any clerk, officer of any court, 
or any judge, in any one case, issued such certificates, for such purpose, 
or used them in any such way, or was a party to the same, or ever issued 


118 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


or awarded a single certificate of naturalization except bona fide , and 
after the actual personal appearance in open court, of both an applicant 
and a witness, together, and upon leaving in the court as a record his 
application and affidavits. 

The testimony shows that persons occasionally came to Hew York city 
from other counties to obtain their certificates, but it is shown, in but a 
few cases, that this was fraudulently done, and in those cases in which 
it is alleged to have been fraudulently done, there is no attempt to impli¬ 
cate a single officer, clerk, or judge in guilty knowledge or participation 
in what was being done. It is to us, therefore, matter of profound 
surprise that such unjust charges should even be insinuated. 

NATURALIZATION BY CLERKS—NOT COURTS. 

It is in evidence that, in some of the counties, (not in Hew York city 
or county) a practice has grown up which tolerates the hearing of appli¬ 
cations for naturalization and the issuing of final certificates by clerks 
of the courts having such jurisdiction, without any proper judicial par¬ 
ticipation in the business by the courts. This practice appears to have 
been based upon the idea that the courts having such jurisdiction are, 
in legal contemplation, open at all times for the transaction of any busi¬ 
ness which does not require previous notice to be given to opposite 
parties. But it is a most dangerous practice, and involves, in our judg¬ 
ment a most serious and unjustifiable departure from the manifest 
requirement of the law of Congress that every grant of naturalization 
shall be done as a judicial act. We also think that the law itself 
demands reform so as to close the door against all excuse for such mode 
of execution of it. 

To indicate more fully the manner in which this practice grew up and 
in which the business was conducted, we will incorporate a part of the 
testimony of Wright Banks, deputy clerk of Westchester county. 

6857. Question. State what has been the practice in that court on the subject of naturaliza¬ 
tion in reference to parties appearing 1 in open court.—Answer. For five or six years, and up to 
the latter part of August last, the practice was to have the witnesses sworu by the clerk in 
the clerk’s office, and the papers were always understood to be issued on authority of 
the judge, though not in his presence. In August, or early in September, 1868, Judge Coch¬ 
rane, the present county judge, directed that the clerk should examine and record the appli¬ 
cation tor naturalization in the open court-room, in his presence; and with the exception of 
about 50 of the naturalizations in 1868 all were examined and naturalized in that way in open 
court, the judge being present and judging of the qualifications of each applicant. 

6858. Q. Had those50 been naturalized prior to that order?—A. Yes, sir. 

6859. Q. And all since that order have been examined in open court?—A. Yes. 

6860. Q. State what means you have of knowing what the practice has been in previous 
years.—A. In ]850-’51 I was a clerk in the clerk’s office in Westchester county, and had charge 
of naturalization as one of my perquisites. At that time the business was invariably done in 
the office, with or without the presence of the judge. I remained in the office about two 
years. I had some business connected with the office again in 1868, when, 1 am aware, the 
practice existed ; and again in l865-’66, up to the present time. 

6861 Q. You know of your own knowledge that that is the way the busine has been 
conducted ?—A. I do. 

6862. Q. When did this judge come into office?—A. The 1st of January, 1868. 

6863. Q To what political party is he attached ?—A. The democratic. 

6864. Q. Who were the judges previous to his administration ?—A. John W. Mills, in 
1850-51. For 12 years prior to the 1st of January, 1868, Judge Wm. H. Robertson was judge 
of that court. He is now a member of Congress. Judge Mills was a democrat and Judge 
Robertson a republican. 

6865. Q. Was that the practice under Judge Robertson?—A. Yes, sir. 

6866. Q. With his knowledge ?—A. Yes. 

It is very manifest that tfiis dangerous mode of doing the business of 
naturalization bad its origin in considerations arising out of tbe pressure 
of other business upon tbe courts, and tbe convenience of parties honestly 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


119 


seeking naturalization. The testimony does not, in any degree whatever, 
suggest or justify the conclusion that it had its origin in political motives, 
or is chargeable offensively to any political party. It was tolerated, con¬ 
tinued, and practiced alike by courts and clerks belonging to both parties. 

We esteem it our duty, also, to state, in j ustice to the clerks w ho exercised 
such unauthorized jurisdiction, of the political associations of many of 
whom we know nothing, that the testimony entirely fails to show that 
they did it corruptly, or without a general purpose and desire to do their 
duties according to the law. The business, in our judgment, both in and 
out of the city of New York, was often done with too great haste, and 
without sufficient deliberation. This, however, resulted from the great 
and in some places unprecedented rush of applicants for naturalization, 
and the natural desire of courts and officers to award it to persons entitled 
to it. 

THE MANNER OF NATURALIZATION, AND THE CONDUCT OF THE COURTS 
AND THEIR OFFICERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. 

As this investigation was predicated upon the allegation that natur¬ 
alization papers were fraudulently issued by the proper courts of the 
city and county of New York, it becomes an important, in fact a vital, 
question to ascertain whether that allegation has been proven by the 
testimony of unimpeached witnesses; for unless it can be satisfactorily 
shown that the courts of New York and their officers were parties to 
the faudulent issue of these naturalization papers there is an end of the 
whole case, and the question reduced to a mere individual violation, or 
attempted violation, of law, which is no new thing in this country or 
any of its great cities. 

After it had been shown by the testimony of Murray and several of 
his deputies that a man named Rosenberg was engaged in the unlawful 
business of obtaining naturalization papers by fraud, it became neces¬ 
sary that the majority of the committee should follow up that fraud and 
fix it upon the courts of record of the city and county of New York. 
Accordingly one Montague Richard Leverson, an Englishman, who set 
out in his testimony (p. 119) with the declaration “that for the last 18 
years his attention had been specially devoted to what may be termed 
the philosophy of legislation; he was a disciple of Jeremy Bentham, the 
great father of the modern school of legislation, and had had the bene¬ 
fit of the personal teaching of John Stuart Mill and William Ellis.” 

This formidable witness (p. 120) then proceeded to detail the result 
of his personal observation in Judge Barnard’s court—first producing a 
report of the same which he caused to be published in the New York 
Tribune of the 23d of October, 1868, over his own signature. 

The chairman of the committee (Judge Lawrence) desired the witness 
to read this report as his testimony, but objection being made he was 
allowed to use it only to “refresh his recollection.” (P. 120.) 

The witness testified in substance that persons were naturalized by 
Judge Barnard to the number “of 110 to 150, or even 200, at once;” and 
“he remembered on one occasion 180 were called up in one batch.” 
“The average was about 140 to 150 in a batch.” (P. 121.) “When 
they came up they would be divided in groups around four or five 
Bibles. Each Bible would be held up by four or five or six men in the 
centre, and the others would either touch it or stretch out their hands 
toward it on being directed to do so by the clerk or judge.” (P. 122.) 

The witness further testified that on one occasion, while he was within 
the court-rooms observing this business of naturalization, the judge 


120 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


(Barnard) ordered the room to be cleared, and he was forcibly ejected 
by the officer of the court. (P. 123.) 

At page 124 the witness testifies that the proceedings in Judge 
McCunn’s court had a far greater semblance of regularity, and what lie 
saw in the court of common pleas seemed to him so entirely regular as 
not to call for any further attention. 

On the same page the witness swears there would be four or five 
batches, varying from 110 to 200 in number, averaging about 140 or 150, 
got through by Judge Barnard in each hour. 

The testimony of this witness runs through 18 pages, and corresponds 
pretty nearly with the extracts quoted above. It was, therefore, un¬ 
necessary to go into it any further beyond showing the animus of this 
“disciple of Jeremy Bentham.” 

On cross-examination, at page 131, he swears: 

A. I have acted with the republican party in this election. 

]380. Q. Did you ever act with any other party in this country?—A. I have not. 

1381. Q. You appear to have given a good deal of attention and a good deal of time to 
the investigation of this matter; have you done that upon your own voluntary motion, or 
upon the employment of others?—A. I was applied to by gentlemen connected with the 
citizens’ committee, sitting at the Fifth Avenue Hotel. 

1382. Q. Appointed by the League?—A. No, not by the League ; I don’t know who they 
were appointed by; it was a citizens* committee acting with the State republican committee. 

1383. Q And by that committee you were employed to look after this matter?—A. Yes, sir. 

B. W. McAlpme, a reporter on the New York Tribune, was called by 
the majority of the committee to sustain the allegations of Leverson in 
regard to the proceedings in Judge Barnard’s court. 

The witness testifies at page 211 that he saw “ two lots” naturalized 
while he was in the court-room. “ There were from 60 to 100 in each 
lot,” (p. 211.) At the same page the witness swears he was in court 
“ perhaps an hour.” “The names of witnesses were called.” “The 
clerk administered the oath.” “1 do not know that any were natural¬ 
ized except those who either touched the Bible or held up their hands,” 

(p. 212.) 

2140. Q. How did the number of names called compare with the number herded together?— 
A. It was very nearly a tally. There were very few who did not answer to their names, 

(p. 212.) 

The testimony of James Collins and Henry Lyle on this subject is 
elsewhere referred to, and this completes the list of witnesses (so far 
as the minority of the committee recollect) who were introduced to 
sustain the charge made by Leverson, that the courts of the city of 
New York, and their officers, were parties to the fraudulent issue of 
naturalization papers. 

It is proper now, in order that the responsibility for the issue and cir¬ 
culation of these fraudulent papers may rest where it justly belongs, 
and that the attempt of the majority of the committee to fix it upon 
the courts of New York and their officers may be exposed aud success¬ 
fully disproved, that we should refer to the testimony of a number of 
highly respectable and intelligent gentlemen, whose opportunities of 
observation were confessedly better, and whose reputation for truth 
and veracity is at least as good as that of “ Jeremy Bentham’s” dis¬ 
tinguished disciple, the Tribune’s reporter, and the Union League’s paid 
agents. 

Peter Cook (p. 477) testifies that “he was a member of the Republican 
Naturalization Committee of No. 25 Chambers street.” “ He was in the 
supreme court once or twice, but in the superior court he was there con¬ 
tinually,” (p. 477.) “Judge McCunn did the most of the naturalization 
business.” “ He could despatch business quicker than almost any other 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


121 


judge.” u lie would question tlie applicant sharply and vigorously,” 
(p. 478.) 

At the same page the witness further swears: 

I have not observed any irregularities of any kind on the part of any of the judges in the 
naturalization business. I have often observed that the judges were deceived. 

Mr. Cook, in answer to interrogatories, swears further as follows: 

4892. Q. You say you never saw any irregularities on the part of the judges or clerks of 
the courts in the business of naturalization?—A. No, sir; and I have been very sharp in 
watching this business. 

4893. Q. State from your observation whether it was practicable for any person to appear 
both as witness and applicant in the same case.—A. Not very well. 

4894. Q. Do you think it possible for a person to be naturalized in these courts without 
having with him somebody as a witness?—A. In Judge Barnard’s court and in Judge 
McCunn’s court two men were always there, one as applicant and one as witness. In fact, 
it was a perfect system for witness and applicant to appear both together before the judge. 

4895. Q. State from your observation in connection with this business whether it was 
possible at all for one man to be both applicant and witness in one case.—A. It might pos¬ 
sibly happen when a large crowd was there that persons would appear before the judges as 
witnesses, be sworn in, answer the questions, and then dodge arouud in the crowd to the 
clerk’s desk and take the oath of allegiance. 

4925. Q. Do you know the fact that there were men employed as witnesses?—A. I do not 
know that they were employed of my own knowledge. I kuow that men hang around 
naturalization offices and the City Hall and offer their services to any person as witnesses. 

Hon. John R. Brady, of the court of common pleas of New York city, 
whom the majority of the committee in their report allude to as “a dis¬ 
tinguished and upright judge,” testifies (p. 054) that when a judge desires 
to naturalize as rapidly as lie can, u he might get through with one in a 
minute.” On the same page he testifies as follows: 

7226. Q. What would be the objection to swearing half a dozen applicants and half a 
dozen witnesses together, provided they are examined separately ?— A. I cannot see any 
objection to that. 

7227. Q. The oath is the same to all: “You shall true answers make to such questions as 
may be demanded of you?”—A. Oh, yes ; fifty might be sworn at a time, if they could put 
their hands on the book. 

7228. Q. And it would be a legal, good swearing?—A. Oh, yes, certainly. I do not 
think it is the best practice, but such a thing might be done, and done lawfully ; if it is done 
in such a way as that each person understands the oath that is taken I do not see any ille¬ 
gality in it. 

Judge Garvin, (p. 477,) one of tlie justices of the superior court of New 
York city, testifies tlmt “ a large number of persons who were entitled 
to naturalization papers during the war delayed getting them for fear of 
the draft, and they delayed getting them until the year 1808.” 

Judge G. also testifies, (p. 440:) 

4482. Q. Did you give any directions to your subordinate officers in regard to the preven¬ 
tion of frauds or irregularities in the procurement of certificates of naturalization.—A. Yes, 
sir. I gave strict directions to the clerks not to naturalize any persons who did not come 
right directly from my presence, so that there could be no false personation. I always gave 
strict directions not to deliver the preliminary papers to any one but the applicant himself, 
and to administer to him the oath of allegiance immediately ; if the applicant did not appear 
right away, the clerk should lay the papers aside. 

“ I rejected a great many applications everyday; J suppose from 20 
to 50 a day,” (p. 447.) “I administered the oath to the applicant and 
witness at the same time,” (p. 447.) 

Judge John H. McCunn, also of the superior court of New York city, 
testifies in substance as follows: a I. never administered the oath of citi¬ 
zenship to persons in squads or singly outside my court room, nor to 
squads in the court-room.” “I would sometimes hold court for natural¬ 
izing persons until 11 or 12 o’clock at night.” u I rejected a large num¬ 
ber of applicants,” (p. 538.) “ 1 recollect that I refused men coming from 


122 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


Rosenberg’s office as witnesses,” (p. 340.) “ I never, at any time, excluded 
the public from the court room during business hours,” (p. 341.) 

Concerning the circulation of fraudulent naturalization papers, Judge 
McCann (p. 347) testifies as follows: 

3671. Q How could certificates of naturalization be procured by persons who had not 
been before the court ?—A. By forgery only. 

3672. Q. Suppose men testify that they have got papers that were sent to them m a dif¬ 
ferent way ?—A. They must have been represented in court by some one else ; it is impos 
sible for the court always to guard against that. 

William C. Barret (page 262) testifies “ that he was in Judge Barnard’s 
court on three occasion last October when he was in the act of natural¬ 
izing persons. There was a great crowd of men in the room.” The wit¬ 
ness says “ he saw nothing that was actually wrong.” He “ saw nothing 
wrong on the part of the judge, or on the part of the officers of the 
court.” 

T. Easton Bennett, (404,) a clerk in the superior court for the past 17 
years, confirms the testimony of Judges McCunn and Garvin. 

Isaac Heyman, (page 376,) a clerk in the supreme court, swears that 
“ Mr. Koch or Mr. Kent, who sat on the bench next to Judge Barnard, 
would call off the names of the witnesses and applicants, when the 
judge would swear them in. He swore them in by reading to each of 
them the oath that is appended to the application.” “After the princi¬ 
pal and witness were both sworn in he would sign orders for the appli¬ 
cation so granted,” (page 376.) 

Edward B. Heath, (page 390,) a clerk in the office of the superior court, 
testifies as follows: 

4002. Q. Did you see in the court or among the officers any disposition to get through 
fraudulent naturalization papers ?—A. I never did ; not in a single instance. 

4003. Q. You do not know anything of the kind ?—A. No, sir. 

Lewis Jonassolm (page 514) testifies that “ witnesses were individu¬ 
ally questioned in Judge McCunn’s court.” “The judge sent away a 
great many Irishmen one night because they did not give proper 
answers to the questions he put to them.” 

Nathaniel Jarvis, jr., (page 198,) clerk of the court of common pleas, 
(a tribunal which the majority of the committee do not even undertake 
to criticise,) testifies as follows : 

3996. Q. Considering the organization of your court—its number of judges ; the time 
they sit; the time devoted to this business, and the rules in regard to it adopted by the court 
—I ask you, in reference to the other courts and their organization, how much more of this 
business the other courts could have done than your court could 1 —A. They could have 
done three times as much. 

Q. State whether, from your knowledge of the manner in which this business is ordinarily 
transacted, it is not practicable for persons who design fraud to deceive and mislead your court.— 
A. Yes, sir; it is a very easy thing. 

1997. Q. And it is in the power of such persons to perfect frauds ?—A. Yes, sir ; it is very 
easy to accomplish them. 

1998. Q. Without any corrupt knowledge on the part of the judges or officers of the court?— 
A. Yes, sir ; it is a very easy thing to do. 

Edwin R. Kent, (page 383,) an attorney and counsellor at law and clerk 
in equity to the supreme court of the city and county of New York, tes¬ 
tifies “ that witnesses and applicants were examined by Judge Barnard 
separately.” “From eight to ten applicants and the same number of wit¬ 
nesses were sworn at a time.” “Mr. Loew, the clerk of the court, cau¬ 
tioned his employes against attempts at fraud, and said that he would 
discharge any person in his employ who did anything wrong.” 

Charles E. Loew, (page 143,) the clerk of the supreme court of the city 
and county of New York, testifies that “Judge Barnard would call the 
applicant, and then the witness 5 that was the uniform mode in each par- 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


123 


ticular case. Eight or ten were sworn at a time, sometimes by the judge 
and sometimes by myself.” “The witnesses were examined by Judge 
Barnard, and never passed without examination.” “I am confident that 
I never saw more than a dozen applicants and a dozen witnesses sworn 
at one time.” 

Joseph Meeks, (page 317,) deputy clerk of the superior court, testifies 
that he “never at any time suffered any of his deputies to issue any cer¬ 
tificates of naturalization to any person without first having received the 
order of the court therefor.” “ The court naturalized some days 300 and 
some days 500; and one day, when the entire force of judges was on the 
bench, 2,000 were naturalized.” 

John B. McKean, (page 307,) a clerk in the office of the supreme court, 
testifies as follows: 

37G4. Q. Did tlie court ever pass upon and order a naturalization in the absence of the 
witness as well as the applicant ?—A. No, sir. 

3765. Q. State whether you know of any persons having been called up and naturalized 
without the witness being present in open court.— A. No, sir; no one that I know of. 

3766. Q. State if you know, or have had reason to believe, that persons were naturalized 
or were declared to be naturalized who were never themselves before the court.—A. No, sir; 
I never had reason to suppose that such was the case. 

The witness further swears that he has been a clerk of the court for 
seven years, and never saw anybody taken by violence or physical force 
out of the court-room. (Leverson, it will be remembered, swore that he 
was forcibly ejected by order of Judge Barnard.) The witness could not 
say positively liow many persons were naturalized in the supreme court 
in one day. He did not think, however, “it varied over 400 or 500; prob 
ably not that.” (Page 371.) “The principals were sworn first, and the 
witnesses afterwards. They would put their hands on the Bible and be 
sworn in.” “ The principals retired after they had been sworn, and before 
the witnesses were sworn.” 

James M. Sweeny, (page 108,) clerk of the superior court, testifies that 
he “ never saw persons naturalized in batches in the superior court.” 
“The applicant and witness were sworn.” “I have made inquiry, and 
am satisfied that my subordinates have done nothing wrong.” “In con¬ 
nection with my inquiries, I did not develope any irregularities in the busi¬ 
ness of naturalization on the part of any of the judges or on the part of 
my subordinates.” 

Sylvester E. Nolan, (p. 436,) a clerk of the superior court, swears as 
follows: 

4379. Q. State whether, in view of the manner in which this business was transacted, it 
could have been practicable for any person to obtain naturalization papers without being 
personally present in court and taking the oath of allegiance.—A. It was impossible to do 
so unless they were falsely personated. I never knew it to be done. 

4380. Q. Did you ever hear of the judges with whom you co-operated in this business 
attempting to put any persons who were suspected of being guilty of improper conduct or 
improper intentions upon the court under arrest?—A. I know that Judge McCunn did on 
several occasions, and has often reprimanded persons and told them not to come before him 
at all. He has often cross-examined parties very closely, and not getting straight answers 
to his questions, he would reject the applications and warn the witness not to appear before 
him again; that if he did he would commit him. I believe he did commit one or two, but 
what was done with them afterwards I cannot say. 

Judge James Emmett, (page 490,) a republican for twenty years and a 
lawyer and citizen of very high standing, both for intelligence and integ¬ 
rity, called, at the instance of the chairman of the committee, to prove 
the insufficiency and illegality of the manner in Avliich the business of 
naturalization was transacted in the courts of New York, disappointing 
the expectations of the majority, testified as follows: 

5087. Q. What is the power of the deputy clerk so appointed to sign the name of the 
county clerk?—A. It has been held in this State that he has power to sign the name of the 


124 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


clerk. I should think, also, that a special deputy, properly appointed, could sign the name 
of the clerk in regard to proceedings in courts. 

5088. Q. How as to certificates authenticating a judicial order?—A. My recollection of 
that statute relative to the appointment of special deputies is that it did not give such power 
to special deputies. 

5U89. Q. How as to the power of administering oaths and attaching jurats?—A. That I 
think a special deputy might do, and if the law authorizes more than one, then all. 

5090. Q. Does not the act of Congress require the oath to be administered to witnesses 
and applicants in cases of naturalization to be in these words: “You solemnly swear that 
you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, touching naturaliza¬ 
tion, so help you God?”—A. I suppose the act of Congress does require an oath to that effect. 
But if the witness is produced in court and his statement is reduced to writing and read over 
to him, and he testifies to it, I think that will satisfy the provisions of the law. I do not 
think the act of naturalization would be vitiated because the common law oath was not 
administered. The witness, however, I think, should be produced, and the court ought to 
make an oral examination, and not to naturalize a person upon the mere production of an 
affidavit prepared and signed out of court, without additional examination. I never knew 
that to be done while I was on the bench. But if the witness was produced and the affidavit 
was read to him, I should think that would answer the requirements of the statute; after 
he had made his deposition it would then be the duty of the court to examine him if there 
was any reason for so doing. 

5091. Q. The next question is as to whether, to test the veracity of witnesses, questions 
cannot be asked that are not printed on the paper?—A. Most unquestionably. 

5092. Q. How could such questions be asked unless the common Law oath was put to the 
witness 7 —A. That is difficult to say. I do not mean to say that merely the production of 
the witness with an affidavit prepared and signed outside, would be sufficient; but I think 
if he is sworn, and made to understand its contents, that would be sufficient. 

Thomas Ryan, (p. 438,) chief officer of the superior court, confirms the 
testimony of preceding witnesses in relation to the business of naturali¬ 
zation in that court. 

In view of the overwhelming testimony to which we have referred, it 
is difficult to see how the allegations and inferences of the majority of 
the committee in regard to irregularities, corruption, and fraud on the 
part of the courts of New York and their officers can be sustained. 

Before leaving this branch of the investigation, it should be stated 
that the testimony of Henry Lyle, (p. 400,) concerning the procurement 
of fraudulent naturalization papers, through Judge McCunn’s court, is 
flatly contradicted by Judge McCunn, who swears, (p. 500:) 

That the aforesaid Lyle is a poor, broken-down, drunken fellow. He appeared in court 
as a witness for some applicant; be was in a drunken condition, and I ordered him to be 
put under arrest. 

5211. Q. State whether, during the time this naturalization business was going on, you 
had any conversation with him about the registration of persons naturalized by you.—A. 
Never in my life. 

5212. Q. Did you ever say to him in effect that if the registers refused to place the names 
of persons for whom he got out certificates of naturalization upon the registry list you would 
compel them to do so?—A. I never exchanged one word with him off the bench in my life. 

DISCREPANCY IN THE COUNT IN SUPERIOR COURT. 

The majority of the committee lay great stress upon an alleged dis¬ 
crepancy in the actual number of naturalization certificates issued by 
the superior court of New York city during the month of October, 1868, 
and the supposed number as given by Owen E. Westlake, in his table, 
which appears on page 201 of the printed testimony, to wit, 26,225. It 
will be perceived by reference to the testimony of Mr. Westlake, at the 
above-mentioned ‘page, that he does not state how he arrived at the 
number given in the table presented by him ; and for aught that appears 
in his testimony the figures may have been the result of a very imperfect 
count—or even guess- work. This view is sustained by the testimony of 
Mr. Jos. Meeks, (p. 321,) the principal deputy clerk of the superior court. 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


125 


In answer to certain interrogatories, Mr. Meeks swears as follows: 

3439. Q. How many of these papers did you issue on any one day last October?—A. We 
averaged some days 300, and some days 500; and one day, when we had the entire force of 
judges on, we had about 2,000. 

3440. Q. Did you naturalize 25,000 in 30 days?—A. No, sir. 

3441. Q. How many did yon naturalize in the 30 days preceeding the last day?—A. To 
the best of my knowledge we naturalized about 18,000 during the mouth of October. We 
commenced on the first and closed on the 23d. I counted them, and to the best of my 
knowledge I make the number about 18,000 for that month. 

Mr. Meeks was recalled, and, at page 728, lie swears: 

On my previous examination I swore that we had naturalized 18,000. When the state¬ 
ment was presented to me, showing that we had naturalized a larger number, I was surprised 
at the increase over my count. I then made inquiry as to the manner in which that count 
had been made. At that time Mr. Glassey, I think, or some person representing this com¬ 
mittee, had asked permission to allow a count to be made in the office. After the count had 
been made, Mr. Glassey informed me of the discrepancy between the count as rendered by 
Mr. Westlake and the count as made by the clerks representing this committee. I then 
directed Mr. Gillespie to make an actual count of each and every paper in the office, which 
he did and furnished me with the result. In consequence of the statement which Mr. Gil¬ 
lespie furnished me, I found that the count which 1 had originally made was correct, and 
found that it agreed with the search made by the clerks sent by this committee. These 
clerks made the count over 18,000, and on actual count Mr. Gillespie made it 18,432. 

The table furnished by Mr. Adam Gillespie, at page 052, purporting to 
give the number of naturalizations in the superior court of New York 
city, from 1850 to 1808, inclusive, was evidently made up from the figures 
of Westlake, above referred to, so far as it concerns naturalizations during 
the month of October, 1808. Mr. Gillespie, however, upon being recalled, 
at page 733, swears as follows: 

8223. Question. State to the committee whether, within the last few days, you made a 
count of the entire number of applications for naturalization in the superior court of the city 
and county of New York; and, if so, what the result was —A. I have. The result has 
been that the whole number of applications on which certificates of citizenship were issued 
in the superior court from the 1st to the 23d of October, inclusive, was 18,432. 

8224. Q. When did you make that examination?—A. About a week ago. 

8225. Q. By whose direction ?—A. By the direction of Mr. Meeks and Mr. Sweeney. 

8226. Q. How did you make it ?—A. By counting each paper. 

8227. Q. Who has charge and has had since the commencement of this business, in Octo¬ 
ber last, of these applications ?—A. I have. 

8228. Q. State whether any of these applications, since they were placed in the court and 
became files of the court, have been lost or mislaid or abstracted or destroyed.—A. I can 
safely swear that none have been destroyed or abstracted, and that all are at present on file 
in the office of the superior court—all that ever were there. 

8229. Q. State how the custody of these papers has been kept since the business was 
done, and since they were executed and left in the court by the respective parties.—A. They 
were locked up. 

8232. Q. State to the committee if you know how this error in the original count was 
made. 1 mean in the count reported to the committee by Mr. Westlake.—A. There were 
some four or five engaged in making the first count. It was done in a very hasty manner 
and under the impression that it was an estimate of the number that was required by the 
committee. It was done in a few hours, at night, in about three or four hours after business 
hours had closed. 

8233. Q. State who were present.—A. Mr. Edward B. Heath, Mr. Owen Westlake, Mr. 
Owen McNeirney, Mr. Jesse Oakley, and myself. 

8234. Q. How could this error have occurred ?—A. I do not know of my own certain 
knowledge how it could have occurred ; I can only presume that it occurred by counting 
some papers over a second time. The place where these papers were counted is a very small 
office or room, about the size of this table. I suppose that the papers were counted over a 
second time. They were not counted singly or separately. There was a package put up 
containing 100 papers, and the remainder of the papers were put up in packages approxi¬ 
mating the size. I now present to the committee a statement of the number of applications 
for naturalization, according to my count, which statement shows the number of applications 
each day from the 1st to the 23d of October, inclusive. 

The testimony of Edward B. Heath (p. 749) and John S. Thompson, 
(pp. 751,752,) clerks in the office of the superior court, confirms that of 
Mr. Gillespie. The discrepancy was occasioned by the imperfect count 


126 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


of Westlake. This is proven beyond all question by the testimony 
quoted above. 

The majority of the committee made no attempt to impeach the testi¬ 
mony of Mr. Meeks, Mr. Gillespie, Mr. Heath, and Mr. Thompson, con¬ 
cerning the correctness of their figuresj and we are therefore bound to 
conclude that the number of naturalizations in the superior court during 
the month of October, or the first 23 days thereof, was 18,432, and not 
2G,225, as the majority of the committee would have it appear. 

ATTEMPTED BRIBERY BY UNION LEAGUE OFFICERS. 

George B. Gifford testifies, at page 406, as follows: 

5189. Question. Do you know John H. White ?—Answer. Yes, sir; I am well acquainted 
with him. 

5140. Q. Have you had any conversation with him lately ?—A. I had about a week ago, 
last Tuesday night. 

5141. Q. Where?—A. In front of the Union League club room. 

5142. Q. Please state what it was?—A. I went up there in company with a friend of 
mine by the name of Henry Darling. Previous to that a boy came to me and said that Mr. 
White wanted to see me at the Union League rooms. I went up there about 8 o’clock in the 
evening with Darling. We met White in front of the Union League club rooms and entered 
into conversation. He said he wanted me to testify to frauds committed by the democratic 
party at the presidential election. I told him I knew of no frauds being perpetrated by the 
democratic party. He said that that would make no difference; that as long as I would 
swear to the facts that he would write in the shape of an affidavit, he would pay me liberally 
for such evidence. I told him that I would have nothing to do with the affair at all. The 
reason he asked me, I suppose, was because I was formerly a member of the republican 
party, arid was formerly in the revenue service. 

Henry Darling testifies, at page 407, substantially to tlie same effect 
as Mr. Gifford. Mr. White denies he had the conversation. 

Lawrence Farrell testifies, at page 590, as follows: 

6582. Q. Do you know anything of Davenport and Grinnell ?—A. Yes, sir; I know 
Davenport and Grinnell; there is Mr. Davenport there. 

6538. Q. Do you know auything about this case? If you do, state it.—A. I received $30 
from Mr. Glassey, and Mr. Foster, and Mr. Davenport, on Saturday night, to keep men 
until Monday to furnish evidence that they had voted illegally in the 21 st ward. 

6534. Q. When was that ?—A. In December I got men to come on Monday to furnish 
evidence that they voted illegally in the 21st ward. 

6535. Q. Who besides Mr. Davenport was engaged in that ?—A. Mr. Glassey and Mr. 
Foster. Mr. Glassey told me I would get the money as soon as Mr. Davenport got back. 

6536. Q. What did you do in respect to the matter?—A. I did not do auything. I did 
not furnish the men. I asked Mr. Foster what he wanted of the men, and he stated he 
wanted to furnish evidence against Sheriff O’Brien, a democratic leader, so that he could 
prosecute him. I said if I would furnish the men, if they were arrested what protection would 
they have, and Foster told me that General Grant, being elected and having the power, he 
would furnish the money and send them out of the United States, if they wanted to go out. 

6537. Q. Have you had any talk with any other republican leaders in reference to this 
matter?—A. I saw John Jay, and he told me to go to the committee. 

Foster, Davenport, and Glassey all admit that they had a conversation 
with Farrell under the assumed name of Pierce. 

Davenport swears, at page 603, that he paid Pierce (Farrell) $30, and 
this is substantially confirmed by the testimony of Foster, page 598, and 
Glassey, page 595. 

In this connection we again call attention to the conduct of certain 
persons who were in the service of the league, assisting William P. 
Wood, before referred to at some length. 

THE POLICE CENSUS. 

John Dunne, a policeman, testifies at pages 293, 294, and 295, in rela¬ 
tion to a census ordered to be taken by Police Superintendent Kennedy, 
for election purposes, as follows : 

3118. Q. Do you know of any law of the State of New York that requires a policeman 
to become a census-taker ?—A. I do not. 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


12T 


3119. Q. Is it not tbe fact that you were directed by the superintendent of police of this 
city to make this census in the interest of the republican party?—A. The orders, so far as I 
could learn, came from the superintendent of police. 

3125. Q. State whether it was any part of your duty as a patrolman to make up partisan 
lists'of voters for anybody.—A. I never knew it to be previous to getting this order; the 
rules and regulations of the police department did not call for it. 

This unauthorized census was made as fully as it could be in view of 
its admitted partisan purpose and character. Its validity was ques¬ 
tioned by the citizens generally; and the inquiries of the persons engaged 
in it were by many disregarded. In so far as it was taken, it was done 
under the order of the republican superintendent of police, Mr. Kennedy, 
and in the interests of his political party. It certainly increased the 
means and knowledge at his command with which to prevent the frauds 
which afterwards were committed. Why were they not prevented to a 
greater extent than was done I To prevent them entirely was beyond 
all human power, under any existing government. But, with the ma¬ 
chinery, the physical force, and the large authority of the board of police, 
it is to us matter of great surprise that so many outrageous frauds as 
are alleged by the majority were allowed to be committed. They cer¬ 
tainly could have been prevented, in a \ ery great degree, by better and 
more efficient organization. 

STANLEY AND WILKES. 

Florence Scannel testifies as follows, at page 539, that a week before the 
November election he had a conversation with Marcus Cicero Stanley, 
in company with George Wilkes, at the Fifth Avenue Hotel. The wit¬ 
ness says: 

I agreed with him to register a number of names and leave them unvoted, provided they 
would give me two republican canvassers in the December election. I fulfilled my part of 
the contract, but they did not theirs. 

5754. Q. With whom did you make this contract?—A. I made it with both Stanley and 
Wilkes. 

5758. Q. What did you do for Wilkes and Stanley ?—A. I registered 150 or 200 names 
in mv ward. I voted some myself, and left some for them to vote. 

5759. Q. How many of these names were of men legally entitled to vote?—A. I cannot 
tell that; probably none, probably a dozen. 

5784. Q. Was it the agreement that the republicans would vote for these names?—A. 
Yes, sir. 

James Gorrey testifies, at page 569, that he was a canvasser in the 
15th district of the 18tli ward; that he made the aquaintance of a man 
named Scannel, and he introduced him to a man named Stanley, who 
said: 

“ This man has just been confirmed.” Mr. Stanley asked me my politics, and I told him 
I did not hardly think that was necessary, but I was a democrat, and appointed a democratic 
canvasser; and he said to me, taking me one side, “Do you want to make a stake?” I 
said that depended upon circumstances; and he says, “I guess it does not make much dif¬ 
ference to you who wins this race now.” I said, It won’t benefit me anyway, that is cer¬ 
tain.” He says, “ I am interested in the vote that Grant and Griswold are going to poll in 
the 18th ward, and if you can assist me any it might be worth a coupie of hundred dollars 
to you.” I put up my hands in that way, (illustrating,) and said, “No, I am not one of 
that kind of people; you must look to somebody else for one to get anything of that kind 
done.” 

Stanley is afterwards sworn himself, and of course denies what Gor¬ 
rey states, but he sustains Scannel in several very important particulars. 
(Testimony, p. 639 et seq.) 

John E. McGowen testifies, at page 527, that two days before the 
November election he met Marcus Cicero Stanley at the Fifth Avenue 
Hotel. 

He asked me if I was a canvasser in the 3d ward in this city, and I told him I was. He 
then offered me $50 to change tickets for him at the election. He wanted me to give him 


128 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


the governor and electoral ticket, and stated he would swap off the other tickets with me. 
That was the substance of the conversation. I have not seen him afterwards to talk with 
him. 

557(3. Q. For whom did he want you tp make this change?—A. In favor of the republi¬ 
cans. I was a democratic canvasser. 

Marshal Murray was present on the occasion of this interview. 

ALLEGED OBSTRUCTIONS TO INVESTIGATION BY THE COURTS AND MR. 

LOEW. 

It is attempted by the majority to show that the judges of the supreme 
court were unwilling that their records and files concerning naturaliza¬ 
tion should be examined by the committee. In our judgment this does 
great injustice to these officers. Neither of the judges ever made any 
objection to their examination with the utmost freedom by the committee. 
Their offence consists only in the fact that they said nothing in reply to 
a written request to permit “ other parties? not members or officers of the 
committee, to take temporary custody of the papers, records, and files 
for examination. These “other parties” were well understood to be the 
hired partisans of the League. The judges preferred to leave the clerk 
to act upon his own judgment in the surrender of these records for 
examination to the temporary custody of any persons, responsible or 
irresponsible, holding him responsible under the law for their safety. 

The clerk, Mr. Charles E. Loew, at all times treated the committee 
with respect and courtesy. He never denied to the committee any access 
to or facilities for the most complete examination of any of his files. He 
always furnished them with promptness and cheerfulness any particular 
papers desired by them. He hesitated at first to consent to let “other 
parties” take charge of his files because he doubted his legal authority 
to do so, and because he feared that the committee would send men 
whom he believed to be untrustworthy or who were known to be per¬ 
sonally offensive to him. But he did consent, and every facility was 
afforded to the committee to make, or cause to be made, the most minute 
and thorough examinations. He was called upon at a late hour on the 
Gth of February to produce to the committee in New York for a second 
examination all the files for the 21st and 23d days of October, and at 
once made an imperative order for one of his deputies, Mr. Plumb, whose 
duty it was to get together again (for they had all been distributed alpha¬ 
betically after the first examination by the committee’s agent) all the 
papers for those days, and to take them to the committee that evening. 
Mr. Plumb found it to be physically impossible to comply with this order 
that evening. He therefore worked some time after the office hour for 
closing that day, and then worked nearly all the next day, (Sunday,) in 
order to comply with the request of the committee, and was ready on 
Monday morning, February 8, to present the desired files. But on Sat¬ 
urday night, without his knowledge, the committee adjourned from New 
York and returned to Washington. 

Mr. Loew was then required by the committee to bring those files, 
some 1,500 in number, to Washington for examination, out of the State 
of New York, out of the jurisdiction of his court, and in direct viola¬ 
tion of the law of the State prescribing his official duties. This, and 
this only, he declined to do, and he did right. He is a State, and not a 
federal officer. These were files of a State, and not a federal court. 
Congress has no power to compel State courts to exercise federal juris¬ 
diction. They may exercise or refuse to exercise such jurisdiction, at 
their option. If they accept and exercise it, they neither cease to be 
State courts, nor become federal courts to any extent whatever. Con¬ 
gress acquires thereby no power over them or their records. 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


129 


Ill our judgment this attempt to prejudice these officers in the public 
estimation is utterly unsustained by the testimony and does them great 
injustice. We refer to the testimony of all the witnesses who say any¬ 
thing on this subject to vindicate what we.say. 

ILLEGAL VOTING. 

Notwithstanding the great number of witnesses examined, and the 
mass of testimony taken by the committee, the proof of any considera¬ 
ble number of illegal votes having been actually cast is, in our opinion, 
remarkably deficient. Wm. H. Bridgman, canvasser, (p. 261,) swears 
that according to the poll-list of the 4tli district, 21st ward, 10 persons 
had voted twice on the same name. The canvassers, however, drew a 
corresponding number from the box. Bridgman’s testimony is confirmed 
by that of Butler H. Bixby, another canvasser of the same district, (p. 
261.) 

Joseph Dumble, (p. 491,) a registrar, and inspector of the 2d district of 
the 4th ward, swears that he knew of only one fraudulent vote in his 
district, and that was the case of a man who did not live at the house 
from which he registered. He further swears that about 900 votes were 
registered in the district, and that the total vote actually cast was about 
99 short of the registry. 

James Dennis, (p. 612,) registrar, and inspector of the 7th district, 21st 
ward, swears that he knew of two cases of fraudulent naturalization 
papers; but does not swear that he knew that men voted on these pa¬ 
pers. On the next page, he swears that there were 404 voters registered 
in the district, and only 362 votes polled. 

Henry Johnson (p. 735) testifies that he was a poll-clerk in the 3d dis¬ 
trict of the 4th ward at the last presidential election, and that 85 names 
were added to the voting list in the course of the afternoon of the day 
of election. He further testifies that there were about 800 voters regis¬ 
tered in this district, and that when the polls closed there were 150 voters 
remaining outside unable to cast their votes. This the witness says was 
owing to the conduct of a Mr. Costello, a republican inspector, who per¬ 
sisted in challenging voters without sufficient ground. 

The witness, in answer to interrogatories on cross-examination, testi¬ 
fies further, as follows: 

8335. Question. Did you see any frauds practiced by either the republican or democratic 
inspectors before the board of canvassers organized ?—Answer. I did not see any out-and- 
out cheating. I thought there was unnecessary delay and challenging by Mr. Costello, the 
republican inspector. It seemed to me to be unnecessary for him to challenge persons 
whom, as he said, he had known well for a number of years. 

8336. Q. State whether as a matter of fact, in consequence of that, the entire legal vote 
of the district was not polled.—A. I do not think it could have been. 

8337. Q. How did you ascertain the precise number of legal votes cast?—A. We kept 
the names of those who voted on the inspector’s book, and there were 685 names registered 
there as having voted legally. 

8338. Q. Were you able to say whether they were or not all legal voters ?— A. That I 
had nothing to do with; that was the duty of the inspectors to ascertain. 

In answer to further interrogatories on cross-examination the witness 
stated that he first told a Mr. Leash about fraudulent votes having been 
cast in his district, and subsequently repeated the story to an officer at 
the Union League. The witness also says he voted for General Grant. 

(It is to be observed in connexion with the testimony of Mr. Johnson, 
quoted above, that he is flatly contradicted on all material points by one 
or more witnesses more recently called.) 

Martin B. Austin, (p.286,) inspector of election 12th district, 13th ward, 
testifies that he “knew of no illegal votes cast at the presidential elec¬ 
tion except one to which he had previously alluded, and there was soma 
H. Eep. Com. 31-9 



130 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


question as to whether that was an illegal vote. There was no voting 
twice, or attempting to vote twice, on the same names. 7 ’ Mr. Austin 
swears he lias always “ voted the republican ticket.” 

Abraham Baker, (p. 303,) a challenger in some election district of New 
York city, (lie does not say where,) swears that the voting was conducted 
at his precinct with unnecessary rapidity, and that one of the inspectors 
said he couldn’t find certain names on the registry. The witness could 
not say whether all the legal voters voted or not; and he further testi¬ 
fies that he knew of no repeating at the polls. Mr. Baker says he is a 
republican. 

Simeon E. Belmont, (p. 3,071,) republican inspector of election for the 
12tli district of the 8tli ward, testifies that “a dozen men voted seven 
times;” but on cross-examination he swears that “only 425 votes were 
polled in the district, about 50 less than were registered.” 

Henry Beeney, (p. 409,) inspector of election 9tli district, 6th ward, 
after making' vague statements about illegal votes having, in liis opin¬ 
ion, been cast in the district in which he says he was thoroughly 
acquainted, further swears, on cross-examination, that he “cannot give 
the name of any person who voted illegally at my precinct,” (p. 411.) 

Henry J. Chapman, (pp. 203, 204,) inspector of election 16th district 
of the 16th ward, and a republican, swears that, so far as he “ knew, 
there were no frauds in the registration or in the voting.” “ The election 
was fairly conducted; the democratic inspectors acted fairly and hon¬ 
orably.” 

Richard G. Hunt, (p. 204,) inspector of election 19th district, 11th 
ward, and a republican, swears that he could state only one person who 
voted illegally, on the name of another. On further examination he 
testified that, so far as he knew, the inspectors “ excluded all illegal 
votes,” (p. 206.) 

Lorenzo Carey, p. 274,) inspector of election 6th district, 6th ward, 
testified that he “ could not specify any case of illegal voting.” Mr. 
Carey is a republican. 

John Donnelly, (p. 225,) inspector of election 5th district, 6th ward, 
testifies that he did not know of any illegal votes having been cast in 
the district at the November election. “ The board were unanimous in 
admitting or rejecting voters.” 

Francis Donnelley, (p. 299,) inspector of election 3d district, 11th 
ward, (the same district referred to by Mr. Baker above,) and a repub¬ 
lican, after testifying about one man voting twice, says all the inspec¬ 
tors except himself seemed to agree to receive the votes that were depos¬ 
ited ; says the poll-list fell short of the registry about 75 names, and 
that there were a good many registered who did not vote, (p. 302.) 

Thomas Flynn, (p. 254,) inspector of election 19th district, 13th ward, 
testifies that he does not know of any illegal vote having been cast in 
said district at the November election, (p. 255.) “ There were 500 names 

on the registry, and 470 or 480 votes polled,” (p. 255.) 

John Gillmore, (p. 458,) inspector of election, 7th district of 4th ward, 
and a republican, testifies that he does not know of his own knowledge 
of any illegal votes having been cast in said district at the November 
election; 715 votes were registered, and about 500 polled, (p. 259.) 

William A. Jenner, (p. 48,) chairman of the board of registers and 
inspector 5tli district of the 18th ward, and a republican, testifies that 
the board did not permit any illegal votes to be cast in said district, yet 
he thinks there was one, although he could not recollect the name of the 
party, (p. 50.) 

William Joralemon, (p. 212,) inspector of election 5th district, 6th 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


131 


ward, testifies that the hoard took all proper precaution to guard the 
polls and the registry against illegal votes,” and “ he does not know of 
any illegal votes being cast there. 

John Kennel, (p. 034,) inspector of election 2d district of the 3d ward, 
testifies: 

So far as I know, the inspectors of registry and election tried to do what was right. 
There were very few who^came there to be registered who were not fc challenged. They all 
swore in. When a man swears in he must be registered. 

Mr. Kennel says he voted for General Grant for President. 

William J. Loutrell, (p. 441,) inspector of election 12th district, 8th 
ward, testifies as follows: 

4416. Q. How many votes were given in your precinct ?—A. Somewhere between 400 
and 500 ; I could not state the exact number: there were about 500 registered; there were 
about 70 votes less cast than were registered. 

4418. Q. State whether there was an apparent effort by the board, so far as you observed, 
to prevent illegal registering and illegal voting ?—A. There was; in fact I think it was 
carried to excess ; I think Mr. Bell, the republican inspector, carried it to excess; he would 
challenge almost every man that came up, whether he knew him to be a legal voter or not. 

4422. State whether anybody, to your knowledge, voted more than once at that election 
in your district.—A. I did not see anybody vote more than once ; I gave particular attention 
to that thing, as there was so much said of repeaters and frauds on election. 

4423. Q. Do you know of anybody voting four times that day 1 —A. No, sir. 

John J. Mulligan, (p. 252,) inspector of election 12th district, 13th 
ward, testifies as follows: 

2686. Q. Was there any disposition evinced by any member of the board to have illegal 
voters put on the registry or admitted to vote ?—A. Not that I am aware of. 

2687. Q. Do you know of any illegal votes having been registered or given in your pre¬ 
cinct.—A. No, sir; I think they were all legal votes. 

Arther McKenna, (p. 395,) inspector 5th district, 1st ward, and a re¬ 
publican, testifies that two illegal votes were cast in his district, because 
he could not ascertain that the voters lived at the number and street 
put down on the registry. 

Patrick Mack, (p. 414,) inspector of election and chairman of the 
board of registration ancl inspection 5th district, 4th ward, testifies that 
he u thinks he knows ” of 100 or 200 illegal votes having been cast in his 
district, but on further examination he can only mention the names of 
three persons whom he says voted illegally. 

Joseph Maloy, (p. 457,) testifies as follows: 

4591. I was an election officer in the 4th district of the 4th ward at the last presidential 
election. I know nothing of illegal votes being cast in that precinct. I had the poll-list of 
registered voters, and as a man came in to vote I checked his name off. I do not know of 
any repeating beiog done at that precinct. 1 believe, however, there was a man arrested 
afterwards for repeating in another district who voted at ours. 

James J. Neeles, (p. 263,) inspector of election 6th district of the 6th 
ward, testifies as follows: 

2781. Q. Were any illegal votes given that you know of?—A. None that I know of; 1 
am a resident of that district for 21 years ; I know a large proportion of the voters ; I should 
think I know from 150 to 200 of them. 

2782. Q. State whether those who voted were generally known by some member of the 
board.—A. They generally were, either as old voters, or as persons who had come to the 
right age to vote. Some one member of the board was acquainted with each man. 

John Osborn, (p. 85,) chairman of the board of registers and inspectors 
of the-district, and a republican, testifies as follows: 

There were no illegal votes polled at my place that I know of. 4 hey were attempted 
but could not go through. I think we protected our polls so that no illegal votes got in. 

George Merritt, (p. 521,) inspector of election, 5th district, 16th ward, 
testifies as follows: 

5553. Q. State whether of your own knowledge you have reason to believe that illegal or 
otherwise unauthorized persons were registered by your board ?—A. No, sir; if a man 



132 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


appeared and desired to be registered, and I bad any doubts about him, I would make him 
show bis papers. I know almost everybody in the ward, and could easily tell whether they 
were legal voters or not. 

Samuel S. Koberts, (p. 190,) inspector of election, 2d district, 17tli 
ward, testifies as follows: 

1972. Q. State if you know any facts that led you to suppose that it would be dangerous 
to challenge on election day.—A. I do not know of anything that would have deterred me 
from challenging a voter. 

1973. Q. Or deter any one else ?—A. Or any one else. 

1974. Q. You say you examined and scrutinized the applications for registration under 
all these new certificates pretty carefully ?—A. Yes, sir. 

1975. Q. And where there was any doubt you swore them ?—A. I asked them if they 
would take the oalh. 

1976. Q. Do you think in that way at registration you got rid of all the illegal votes ?— 
A. I think that our strictness there prevented a great many from coming there to be regis¬ 
tered. 

1977. Q. And that you kept your polls pretty pure ?—A. Yes, sir. 

1978. Q. How many did you reject ?—A. I suppose we may have rejected some 20, more 
or less. 

Porter (4. Sherman, (p. 84,) register and inspector of election, 8th dis¬ 
trict, 17th ward, testifies as follows: 

937. Q. Did^you know of any illegal votes having been given at your precinct ?—A. No, 
sir; I do not positively know of any ; I know if I had it to do over again I would retain all 
of these papers instead of allowing anybody to vote upon them. 

Dugald Stewart, (p. 96,) inspector of election, 17th district, 20tli ward, 
testifies as follows: 

1106. Q. State if you know of any person having registered on naturalization papers who 
was not entitled to be registered.—A. No, sir ; I do not know of any in that district. 

N’. H. Springsteen, (p. 218,) inspector of election, 19th district of the 
11th ward, testifies as follows: 

2211. Q. Was there harmonious action in your board with reference to excluding illegal 
voters from registering and from voting ?—A. Yes, sir ; there was. 

2212. Q. You all concurred in it?—A. We all concurred in having things done fair and 
square. 

2213. Q. Was any one admitted to register or vote excepting by the consent of the board ?— 
A. Not one. 

2214. Q. And in this the board all concurred?—A. Yes. sir. 

2215. Q. From all you know, was the election fairly and honestly conducted ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Solomon Leixas, (p. 227,) inspector of election, ICth district, Cth ward, 
testifies as follows: 

2330. Q. Do you know of any illegal votes being either registered or voted at that 
place ?—A. No, sir. 

2331. Q. Did you use ordinary precaution to protect the polls ?—A. We did. 

2332. Q. State to the committee what action you took for the purpose of protecting them ?— 
A. We looked at all the papers, and any paper that we thought doubtful we did not receive. 
We found one paper, for instance, that was all correct, but we did not receive it on account 
of the man saying he did not have his first papers. All the rest were in due form, I believe, 
to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

Dennis Shea, (p. 389,) inspector of election, 4th district, 4th ward, and 
a republican, testifies as follows : 

3992. Q. Were there any persons who voted there who were not legal voters ?—A. Not to 
my positive knowledge. If I were aware of it they could not vote. 

3993. Q. I think you said you challenged everybody whom you suspected ?—A. Every¬ 
body ; and I made three or four arrests. 

3994. Q. Did the rest of the board co-operate with you to prevent fraud ?—A. Yes, sir. 

3998. Q. You do not know of any illegal votes being given in that precinct ?—A. I can¬ 
not swear to any. 

William W. Young, (p. 47,) inspector of election, 4th district, 17th 
ward, testifies as follows: 

510. Q. And where a man could not recollect the name of the witness you rejected his 
paper ?—A. Yes, sir ; being satisfied that the papers were not issued in a regular way. 

511. Q. None of these men registered or voted?—A. No, sir. 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


133 


512. Q. Were there any illegal votes given at your precinct ?—A. I think not. 

513. Q. You kept them all out?—A. We were very cautious. I have been an inspector for 
six or seven years, and I had made up my mind that we might as well have the thing go 
on straight. Everything we thought illegal was thrown out. 

514. Q. If any man could not recollect where he got his papers, or who his witness was, 
you threw out his vote?—A. Yes, sir. 

Benjamin Yan Buren, (p. 206,) inspector of election, 16th district, 16th 
ward, testifies as follows: 

2079. Q. State to the committee how the election there was conducted, and how the officers 
discharged their duty both at the registration and the election.—A. Everything went on 
very pleasantly. They all seemed to do their duty. I saw nothing that I supposed to be 
illegal. Judge Willis being an ex-judge, did most of the swearing for us. 

2080. Q. There was no difference or ill-feeling among the members of the board ?—A. None, 
whatever. 

2081. Q. Everything went off pleasantly?—A. Very agreeably and pleasantly. 

2082. Q. And there was no illegal voting or registration so far as you know ?—A. I do 
not think there was an illegal vote polled. 

2083. Q. You think that the registration and election were properly conducted?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

2084. Q. And that none but legal voters voted ?—A. No, sir. 

2085. Q. Nothing improper transpired at the polls ?—A. Nothing, that I saw. 

The testimony of several other registrars and inspectors of election 
might he given to the same effect, but it would be merely cumulative. 
Sufficient evidence has been already presented to disprove the allega¬ 
tion of the majority that a very large number of fraudulent votes ivere cast 
at the election in question. We submit, on the testimony of the regis¬ 
trars and inspectors to whom we have above referred, that it appears 
very clear that not 100 fraudulent votes are proven to have been actually 
cast in the districts which they represented, and which were, no doubt, 
purposely selected by the majority of the committee and the agents of 
the League as affording the worst examples of illegal voting to be found 
in the great city of New York. 

CHARACTER OF SOME OF THE COMMITTEE’S WITNESSES. 

Perhaps the most disagreeable feature of the protracted and laborious 
investigation made by the committee was the character of a number of 
the witnesses subpoenaed to appear and testify before it. 

The falsity of their statements was in many cases apparent on their 
faces as well as on the faces of the falsifiers. They w 7 ere men whose 
testimony would not have been admitted by any respectable tribunal in 
the country, or believed by any intelligent jury, and it was with aston¬ 
ishment that w T e saw them presented to give evidence tending to injure 
the reputation of respectable and upright men. The testimony of these 
false witnesses is found on nearly every page of the printed evidence, 
and relates to a variety of subjects. 

We shall only, for the purposes of this report, present a few of their 
statements, and then show the reputation of those who made them. 

First. At page 407, one Michael Costello, a republican, in the 3d dis¬ 
trict of the 4th ward, relates a “ Munchausen” story about “repeaters,” 
and the manner in which they threatened his very life. 

At page 442, Mr. Matthew T. Brennan, one of the police commissioners 
of the city of New York, testifies concerning this man Costello as 
follows: 

4430. Q. Are you acquainted with a man by the name of Costello, at present a bell-ringer 
in this city?—A. I am. 

4431. Q. What is his reputation for truth and veracity in this community?—A. I would 
not believe him under oath if he was an interested party. 


134 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


To tlie same effect, Hon. Morgan Jones, ex-member of the House of 
Representatives, testifies, (p. 438:) 

4392. Q. Do you know what is the general reputation of Costello among his neighbors 
for truth and veracity?—A. I think he is a bad fellow; his reputation is bad for truth and 
veracity. 

4393. Q. On that reputation would you believe him under oath?—A. No, sir. 

John P. Thurston (p. 430) testifies as follows concerning Costello’s 
conduct at polls: 

4330. I was an election officer at the last presidential election in the 3d district of the 4th 
ward. 

4331. Q. Did you see any obstructions thrown in the way of men’s voting so that they 
all did not get their votes in?—A. Yes, sir. A man by the name of Michael Costello, chair¬ 
man of the board of inspectors, challenged almost every legal voter who presented himself, 
and would delay them by swearing them and examining them. 

4332. Q. He challenged men he knew to be voters?—A. Yes, sir. 

4333. Q. And in that way retarded the voting?—A. He delayed it a great deal. 

4334. Q. Was it carried to such extent as to leave many persons at the polls at the time 
they closed in the evening, waiting to deposit their votes?—A. Yes, sir; there were at least 
a hundred on the sidewalk who could not vote when the polls closed. There was one man 
in particular by the name of McLaughlin, whom I have known for many years to be a legal 
voter. Costello also knew him. 

It is fortunate that the best arranged schemes of fraud generally fail 
from the inability of any human mind to anticipate and guard every 
point. However accomplished the scoundrel may be by whom any such 
scheme is contrived, or however artfully he may be aided by others, 
when it is put forth and subjected to the scrutiny of other minds its 
falsity is almost certain to be conclusively demonstrated. A man call¬ 
ing himself Henry Lyle was examined before the committee, under cir¬ 
cumstances which marked him as one of the chief cards of the investi¬ 
gation. He was hunted up by one Utley, a removed custom-house officer 
seeking to get back, and was tutored before examination by Mr. Daven¬ 
port, one of the clerks furnished to the committee by the Loyal League. 
Lyle told the most marvellous stories, one of which was that during the 
month of October, 1868, he falsely swore, as witness, to affidavits upon 
which he procured from GOO to 1,000 certificates of naturalization. That 
number he said he u would swear to;” and he added: “ Sometimes 1 
would swear to 20 or 30, and sometimes 50 a day.” These certificates, 
he said, were obtained in the superior court, before Judge McOunn, and 
in the supreme court, before Judge Barnard; although, not bearing in 
mind the old adage that u liars should have good memories,” he forgot 
himself on his further examination, and said that he never went before 
Judge McOunn. He further testified that in 100 of these cases he per¬ 
sonated the applicant and took the oath of allegiance; that between 50 
and 100 times he acted as witness as well as applicant, which would 
leave, according to his story, from 400 to 800 cases in which he appeared 
only as a witness. He also testified that he signed different names as wit¬ 
ness, to use his own language, “ Just as it happened to come into my head. 
Sometimes I would sign my own name, at others that of Henry Law¬ 
rence, or Lines, or any name.” He afterwards testified that he “ put 
down” the name of Henry Lyons as witness. These are the names by 
which, as he said, he appeared as a witness, and are the only names he 
specified. Tables were prepared and put in evidence before the committee 
by persons selected by and acting for the Union League or the committee, 
(it does not clearly appear which,) or both, showing the number of times 
that the name of each person who frequently acted as a witness in natu¬ 
ralization cases in the supreme and superior courts, during October, 1868, 
appeared upon the papers. Neither Henry Lyle, nor Lawrence, nor Lines, 
nor Lyons appears in either of these tables. It is thus clearly proven that 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


135 


neither the real nor an assumed name of this wholesale liar, who swore 
that he was a witness in from GOO to 1,000 cases, is found upon the 
papers of any of the persons naturalized or appearing to be naturalized. 
Whether the cases were honest or fraudulent, he was no witness. 

In this connection the testimony of the following named witnesses 
will shed more light upon Lyles true character. 

Thomas Kynn (p. 519) testifies— 

That he knows a man named Henry Lyle. He appeared in court several times under the 
influence of liquor, and acted in a disorderly manuer. I turned him out several times. He 
was generally intoxicated when he was at the court. 

5529. Q. State whether it is, from your knowledge and observation of the superior court, 
possible for this man Henry Lyle, duriug these days of naturalization, to have come into 
court and to have secured, on his own testimony, as either witness or applicant, from 600 to 
1,000 certificates?—A. No, sir; it would have been utterly impossible. 

The testimony of Samuel S. Acker (p. 519) is to the same effect. 

Austin D. Pettit, (pp. 493, 494,) for whom Lyle swore he procured 
naturalization papers, thus disposes of that individual. In reply to a 
question as to whether he knew Lyle, the witness answered, “Yes,sir!” 

5110. Q. What is his character for truth and veracity?—A. Not very good in my opinion. 

5111. Q. What is his reputation among his neighbors for truth and veracity ?—A. I could 
not say; I have never associated with bis neighbors. 

5112. Q What means have you of knowing his character for truth and veracity?— A. 
Generally from his mode of life. He is an habitual drunkard. 

5117. Q. State whether you did ever at any time procure 10 final certificates of naturali¬ 
zation from any court in anybody’s name or names and give them to Henry Lyle?—A. No, 
sir; I never did. 

A witness named John J. Mullen (p. 642) testifies to having “repeated” 
largely in the interest of the democratic party at the November election. 
He also stated that he was acquainted with Police Justice Edward 
Hogan, who testifies (p. GG5) that he knew such a man. 

7408. Q. State what you know in reference to this Mullen?—A. I can only say that I 
know him as a professional thief for four or five years. 

7409. Q. Are you acquainted with his general reputation?—A. I should say that I am. 

7410. Q. Do you know what his general reputation is for truth and veracity ?—A. It is 
bad. 

7411. Q. From that general reputation would you believe him under oath?—A. I would 
not. 

T. J. Gillmore, (p. 208,) a messenger, furnished the committee by 
“ The League,” testifies as follows: 

2105. Q. I went last evening to serve a subpoena issued by this committee, directing Pau 
Dehlman to appear as a witness. The name is Dellinger—not Dehlman. He keeps a bar¬ 
ber shop in avenue C. When I went in, Charles E. Loew, county clerk, was there, waiting 
to be shaved, and there was quite a crowd of other roughs there too. 

2106. Q. You include the county clerk in that description ?—A. Yes, sir. When I presented 
the subpoena to the barber, Mr. Loew told him not to take it unless I had the original to show 
him. I said the original was in possession of the committee. Dellinger would not take the 
subpoena, and as they showed a disposition to be quarrelsome I left. 

At page 256 Mr. Loew was recalled and interrogated as to bis where¬ 
abouts on the evening mentioned by Gillmore, and having satisfactorily 
shown that he was not in the “ barber shop,” and that Gilmore’s whole 
story was false, whereupon Gillmore was recalled, confronted with Mr. 
Loew, and examined as follows: 

2730. Q. Do you see that gentleman ?—A. Yes, sir. 

2731. Q. Is he the gentleman whom you testified to yesterday, as having interfered with 
you in the service of a subpoena ?—A. He is the gentleman, or else he looks very much like 
him. 

2732. Q. Do you say that he is or that he is not the party?—A. / do not think he is. 

This thing developed a very mean attempt to cast odium, most unjustly 

and without any regard for truth whatever, upon Mr. Loew. Who 
inspired this unmanly attempt we do not say. 


136 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


The witness Montague Richard Leverson, who swore (p. 119) that 
he saw from 110 to 150 persons naturalized in Judge Barnard’s court, is 
thus disposed of by Mr. William R. W. Chambers, (p. 638:) 

7044. Q. Are you acquainted with M. R. Leverson, who has been a witness before this 
eommittee ?—A. I have known him for some time back. I was employed in the city inspec¬ 
tor’s department, and he used to be in and out of the office. I always knew him as Lawyer 
Leverson. 

7045. Q. Do you know his general reputation for truth and veracity?—A. Yes; his gen-, 
eral reputation is bad. 

7046. Q. From that general reputation would you believe him under oath?—A. No, sir; 
I would not. 

In concluding this head it is only necessary to refer to the testimony 
of Sheriff O’Brien, (pp. 515, 516,) in regard to the character of some of 
the witnesses sent over from Wood’s office at Jersey city to testify before 
the committee. Mr. O’Brien was asked who gave directions to arrest 
certain parties. He answered as follows : 

As I understood that the committee wanted me to take a party whom they had here as a 
witness to be identified, I took One down to the 6th ward station-house to be identified by 
Captain Jourdan; this is a sample of the lot of witnesses that have been here; they are all 
thieves, and they get pay for coming here and swearing. 

Further on Mr. O’Brien swears: 

I met a lot of suspicious people out in the entry. I knew them to be a lot of English 
thieves, and I took them to Captain Jourdan to identify them, and found them to be common 
criminals. 

It should be borne in mind that the parties alluded to were waiting in 
the entry of the United States court-house to be examined as witnesses 
before the committee. Marshal Murray himselt testified that he believed 
the most of these witnesses were thieves. 

THE CONDUCT OF MARSHAL MURRAY. 

Allusion has elsewhere been made to the conduct of officers of the 
Union League and its paid agents, and officers of the federal and State 
(Hew York) governments, in the matter of this investigation. We have 
shewn that it not only originated with these partisans , but was stimulated , 
and as the testimony clearly proves, supported and carried on by them 
during the entire session of the committee. Their “footprints” are 
visible on nearly every printed page of the testimony, and the individual 
conduct of many of them justly subjects them to severe criticism, if not 
reprobation. Prominent among these gentlemen stands Mr. Robert Mur¬ 
ray, United States marshal for the southern district of New York. We 
append a few extracts from the testimony touching his connection with 
political affairs in New York and with this investigation. 

The following questions were put to him on cross-examination, (p. 7:) 

58 Q. Do you know of any money being raised in this city with a view of operating on 
the election or controlling it?—A. I have always been in the habit of contributing money 
myself for election purposes. 

62 Q. How much did you contribute last’fall ?—A. Perhaps $3,000 or $4,000. 

David Hogan testifies, at page 531, that he had a conversation with 
Marshal Murray and Marcus Cicero Stanley, at the Fifth Avenue Hotel, 
prior to the last November election, in reference to voting and getting 
repeaters, and repeating himself. The witness says: 

I "went over to the Fifth Avenue Hotel with a friend of mine, by the name of Ferguson, 
and also one by the name of Jones, and another man whose name I do not recollect. We 
heard that there was a good deal of business going on at the Fifth Avenue Hotel in connec¬ 
tion with the election; I said to Ferguson that there was a good deal of money floating 
around there, and that we might try and get some of it. I went there and saw Marshal 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


137 


Murray; lie said lie wanted me to get 10 good men to vote on election day in the western 
district of the 21st ward, and one or two districts of the 18th ward, and he asked me how 
much it would be worth; I told him it would be worth $1,000; Murray said that was too 
much ; we talked a little while, and he finally offered me $300 ; I said I would take it; I then 
made an agreement with him to meet him at the Hoffman House the night before the election ; 
we went there that night and met him there ; he introduced us to a man, whom I had not 
seen before, with very heavy black whiskers, and he paid us the $300; I then went to the 
bar-room and divided it up between myself, Ferguson, Jones, and the other man. 

The testimony of John Jones, page 548, and Hiram B. Ferguson, page 
564, is to the same effect, and confirms Hogan in every essential point. 

Thomas Sullivan testifies, at page 528, that— 

John Donovan and himself were standing in Chambers street, (New York,) whilst the com¬ 
mittee were in session, and that Marshal Murray came up and asked them what they were 
doing there. 

He asked us then if we would not make an affidavit that we breakfasted at Sheriff O’Brien’s 
house on the morning of election, and repeated for the democratic party in the election. 
I told him I would not make such an affidavit. 

5605. Q. Did he offer you any reward ?—A. Yes, sir. 

John Donohue, at page 529, confirms Sullivan’s testimony in every 
material point. Mr. Murray of course denies the statements of these 
witnesses. 

At page 545, Mr. Murray was recalled and interrogated in regard to 
his authority for placing 24 policemen around the room occupied by the 
committee for its sessions. He (Murray) answered as follows: 

I asked the superintendent of police this morning to send me eight or ten men. Things 
looked rather rough about here at 10 o’clock this morning. There was a rough crowd in the 
hall, and I made a requisition upon the superintendent for eight or ten men. 

When called upon for a copy of the requisition made upon the super¬ 
intendent for these policemen, he replied “that he did not keep a copy.” 

His first excuse for calling to his aid so large a force of police was that 
he did it for the protection of the building, (the United States court¬ 
house,) but on further examination (p. 546) it appears that he appre¬ 
hended personal danger also, although he says he “has considerable 
courage.” It appears clear to us that the chief, if not the only, purpose 
of this singular display of force was to embarrass the minority of the 
committee in the presentation of evidence, and to drive away their wit¬ 
nesses by intimidation. The array of armed and uniformed policemen 
was utterly uncalled for by anything in the circumstances, or in the con¬ 
duct of the witnesses produced by us. In their characters Mr. Murray 
himself testifies that they were no worse or more vicious than the wit¬ 
nesses called by the majority during the preceding days. It is extremely 
probable that Mr. Murray did not desire the presence of the witnesses 
called by the minority, because some of them had testified to unwelcome 
facts about him, and others might do so. 

It is a significant fact, and ought not to be omitted from this connec¬ 
tion, that Mr. Murray was, no doubt, consulted about the establishment 
of Wood’s subornation office at Jersey City, and often went over there to 
advise with Wood as to its management and success; and must have 
been aware of the infamous purposes which controlled it, and the dirty 
work it was organized to do, and did so successfully. These facts further 
explain his conduct in reference to the police, and his objection to the 
presence in the hall of democratic detectives to aid in exposing the frauds 
and perjuries of the thieves sent over from that office. 

In this purpose to exclude our witnesses and embarrass us, Mr. Le 
Barnes, sergeant-at-arms of the committee, an earnest partisan of the 
League, seems to have fully sympathized. 


138 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


In support of this allegation we invite attention to the following extract 
from Murray’s testimony (p. 546.) 

5848. Q. Do you think you have the right to bring these policemen here and supersede the 
sergeant-at-arms of this committee?—A. I had nothing to do with the policemen. I sup¬ 
posed that you were going to conduct your own business in your own way, with your own 
sergeant-at-arms. 

5849. Q. Suppose our sergeant-at-arms wanted the witnesses in the hall and in the 
doorway ?-—A. He told me that he did not. 

5850. Q. Did he ask you to send for these policemen ?—A. No, not particularly.. 

5851. Q. Did you have any talk with him on the subject ?—A. Not to-day. I did yester¬ 
day. 


ILLEGAL REGISTRATION. 

Among.the witnesses who testify to the illegal registration of names, 
is Michael Brady, (p. 544) who says that at the house where he resides 
(49J Dominick street,) there was but one voter at the last presidential 
election, and that there were five names registered fiom said house. He 
further swears, that he examined the registry-list in regard to certain 
houses in William street, and found about the same excess in registra¬ 
tion, over the actual residents of the houses referred to. 

He swears, however, on cross-examination, that he did not inquire for 
the persons who were registered from these houses until a week after 
the charter election in December a month after the presidential election. 
On cross-examination the witness also swore (p. 544) that he was 
requested to examine these poll-lists by Major Strong. He is connected 
with the Union League. He found the poll-books at the Union League 
club-house. There were probably about 200 of them there,* I cannot 
positively say how many. 

It will be perceived that the witness (Brady) swears that he found 
these books at the Union League. On this point, the testimony of Judge 
John H. White, a prominent member of and counsel for that organiza¬ 
tion in the matter of investigating these alleged election frauds, contra¬ 
dicts Brady flatly. At page 650 Judge White swears as follows in answer 
to certain interrogatories: 

7176. Q. Does tbe law require any of these registry-books to be deposited at the Union 
League headquarters ?—A. No, sir. 

Q. By what authority are they deposited there ?—A. The registry books were not there. 
We had books there which we had made up ourselves. I had charge of that matter. 

William W. Woodward (p. 436) swears that he noticed three parties 
in the 9th district of the 6th ward, registering under assumed names, 
and one party registered twice. He does not swear, however, that the 
first three had registered under their real names previously, or that any 
of them actually voted. 

Certain election inspectors express the opinion, in their testimony, 
that there was some illegal registration in the districts where they re¬ 
spectively officiated, but it does not appear in evidence that any consid¬ 
erable number of illegally registered persons voted. 

The exploits of repeaters will be given under another head. 

REPEATERS AND REPEATING IN THE INTEREST OF BOTH PARTIES. 

We come now to the prolific subject of “ repeating,” as it is called, and 
invite the attention of the House to the following analysis of the testimony 
relating thereto, which upon examination will be found to sustain the 
views of the minority of the committee hitherto expressed in this report, 
on the general subject of illegal voting. 

Joseph Benson, (p. 427,) an old man 70 years of age, swears that he 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


139 


voted four times. He gives tlie number of tbe precincts at which he 
voted, but does not give the number of the ward. He acknowledges 
that he u was rather boozy,” and don’t positively recollect which ticket 
he voted. 

Michael Costello (p. 407) swears about seeing gangs of “ repeaters” 
around the polls, but his character for u truth and veracity” is broken 
down by the testimony of Brennan and Jones, elsewhere quoted. 

Edward Clark (p. 626) swears that he voted 15 or 18 times. He voted 
in the 10th and 11th wards, and in different wards afterwards. He 
does not state which districts in said wards he voted in. He says fur¬ 
ther that he u got so drunk he did not know what he was about.” 

On cross-examination he discloses the true reason why he testified as 
he did. He says: 

When I asked for the money for voting they licked me. Thai is the reason I make this 
statement. I want satisfaction. I got nothing for repeating except what I had to eat and 
drink. My politics are republican. I do not like the democrats much. I have got a grudge 
against them. 

Edward Cobb (p. 626) testifies that he voted 15 or 16 times at least. 
He gives the number of the district where he voted legally , but does not 
state in which districts he voted illegally. He acknowledges that he 
made his first statement about repeating in Wood’s office, at Jersey City. 
The reason he did so is exidained in his own language, as follows : 

I did so for satisfaction because I had been promised $30 for voting and got nothing ; I 
had always voted the republican ticket until that day ; my father is an old republican, and 
I always follow his ways ; I have been always a republican in principle. 

William Dorans (pp. 448, 449) testifies that he “ repeated” from 10 to 
15 times. From 20 to 30 others were engaged with him in the same 
business. He don’t state, however, the number of the districts in which 
he voted, and don’t know which ticlcet he voted. He u thinks it was the 
democratic ticket.” 

Charles Ferguson (p. 621) testifies that he voted at the last president¬ 
ial election 14 or 15 times. He don’t tell tlie number of the districts in 
which he voted and did not notice which ticket he voted. He supposes 
“ the rest of the party voted the same ticket that he did, but he does 
not know what ticket it was.” 

William H. Greene (pp. 315, 316) testifies about a number of men reg¬ 
istering from 169, 197, and 167 Henry street, the residences of Coroner 
Keenan, Police Justice Shandley, and William M. Tweed. The witness, 
however, did not know of more than one of them having voted and he 
was arrested. Greene is a republican and only knew one of these 
u would be” repeaters as a democrat. 

Charles Grant (p. 428) testifies that he voted about 36 times at six 
different places. He did not know the number of the districts in which 
he voted. On further examination (p. 429) it turned out that this ex¬ 
tensive u repeater” was referring exclusively to the mayoralty election in 
Hew York in December last, and the ticket that he repeated so indust¬ 
riously was the Conkling (republican) ticket. 

James Green (p. 507) testifies that he took breakfast at the house of 
Sheriff O’Brien on the morning of the election, and that he subsequently 
voted nine times. ' He does not remember any of the names on which he 
voted. 

The witness acknowledges that he first made his statement in Jersey 
City, (Wood’s office.) 

Sheriff O’Brien was recalled, (p. 509,) and contradicted the testimony 
of Green so far as it related to 40 or 50 repeaters having breakfasted at 
his (O’Brien’s) house on the morning of the election. 


140 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


John Gregory (p. 586) testifies that he voted twice. He was with a 
gang of 15 or 20, but could not say they were engaged in voting more 
than once ; witness could not say which ticket he voted; he received 
nothing for voting twice; witness was promised money for making this 
statement, at Wood’s office in Jersey City. 

William H. Hendrick, alias William H. Travis, a frequenter of faro 
banks, testifies (p. 237) that he joined a gangof repeaters and continued 
to operate with them, on the advice of Superintendent Kennedy and 
George Bliss, jr., counsel of the police board. Witness testifies that he 
was furnished with various names on slips of paper, and went around 
with the gang of repeaters to register them; witness says the gang was 
under the control of Alderman Norton, his brother, Peter Norton, and 
Peter Mitchell; he, the witness, says he went into the business of illegal 
registration for money, but didn't get any ; says he is a republican, and 
voted for Grant; he did not vote but once, and did not know that any¬ 
body else voted on the fictitious names registered by himself; his right 
name, he says, is William H. Hendrick, but he enlisted in the army under 
the assumed name of William H. Travis. Prom his own statements, under 
oath, it is evident that he is a very depraved character; and soon after 
he entered upon this unlawful and disreputable business he was employed 
as a clerk by the Union League at $18 per week, which position he still 
held at the time he testified. The following is his statement about it, 
at page 247: 

2576. Q. How have you managed to get a living since then?—A. Since then I have been 
employed as a clerk in the office of the Union League, and am now in that service. 

2577. Q. At what compensation?—A. I have been getting $18 per week. 

George Harris, (p. 419) testifies that at the last presidential election 
he “went around to four or five different districts, and voted two or three 
times at each place, this mostly in the 21st ward,”—the 4th, 5th, Gth, 
8th, and 9th districts. He was with a gang of 20 or 30. He could not 
say “ wliat ticket this gang -voted,” (p. 421.) Witness first told Colonel 
Wood that he had voted illegally. u He should not have told Wood if 
it had not been for William Doran one of his, (Wood’s,) spies: he, (Wood,) 
sent for Doran and asked him. (p. 422.) 

George Hill (p. 482) testifies that he was one of the gang of 16 or 20 
repeaters on the day of the election, and that he “ voted nine or ten times 
in the different election districts of the city, mostly in the 8tli ward.” 
The witness swears he was very hard up, and had to steal, or do some¬ 
thing to get a living. On further examination the witness testifies (p. 483) 
as follows: 

4958. Q,. What reward do you expect for coming here ?—A. I do not expect any reward. 

4959. Q. Have you not had assurances that you would be rewarded to testify in this way ?— 
A. I do not know as I had. I refuse to answer whether I had or not. 

4960. Q. Who saw you before you came here in relation to this testimony ?—A. I saw a 
man in Jersey City. 

John Hughes (p. 622) testifies that he voted eight times at the late 
presidential election, but does not know “what ticket he voted,” or what 
political party he acted with. On cross-examination he testified: 

I do not know what ticket I voted, or the others voted ; I do not know how many times 
they voted ; I was to get $20 or $25 for it; I got about $10, I guess, from the man who had 
the party; I do not know his name, and never heard it; I never saw him after that; I got 
so intoxicated that I did not know what I was doing; I got intoxicated about 3 o’clock ; I 
was drinking all the time, but after that I do not recollect. 

John Heath (p. 637) testifies that he— 

Voted the democratic ticket at the last presidential election, at 68 East Broadway, and in 
Canal street twice. There were about 25 in the party, and they all voted, I suppose, a couple 
of times. 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 141 

On cross-examination, however, lie testifies that he did not know the 
man who gave him the slips to vote on: 

I suppose he was a democrat. The whole crowd was drunk. Two or three of them were 
“ fighting drunk.” I am 22 years of age. I was born in this country. I never “repeated ” 
before. I was promised money or I would not have done it. I got no money. My father 
is a republican. If I had not been drunk I would have voted the republican ticket. I have 
been over to Jersey City and made a statement. 

George Johnson (p. 480) testifies that he “repeated” largely in the 4th, 
5th, 0th, 7tli, and 8th precincts of the—— ward. He did not look at the 
ticket, but “thinks it was a Seymour and Hoffman ticket.” 

On cross-examination the witness testifies that he never received a 
cent for “repeating,” and that a Mr. Doran asked him to appear before 
the committee and testify. 

4934. Did anybody tell you that you would be protected from prosecution if you came here 
to testify ?—A. I was under that impression. 

4935. Q. Who told you of it?—A. Mr. Doran and Mr. Le Barnes, deputy sergeant-at-arms 
of this committee. 

4936. Q. How did he come to tell you of it ?—A. Somebody asked him outside in the entry, 
and he said there was some law passed protecting witnesses who testified before a congres¬ 
sional committee, stating at the same time that if I did not testify I was liable to be arrested 
at any moment. 

4937. Q. Arid if you testified you would not be arrested or punished?—A. Yes, sir. 

John Kugle (p. 623) testifies that he voted four times at the last presi¬ 
dential election. He forgot the names he voted for. He was under the 
influence of liquor. He “ voted the democratic ticket all through.” 

On cross-examination he says he was told it was the democratic ticket. 
The following is the witness’s estimate of “repeaters: ” 

6926. Q. What kind of men do you associate with ?—A. I suppose they are gentlemen; 
they pretend to be so. 

6927. Q. Do “gentlemen” here follow repeating?—A. They did then. 

6928. Q. “ Gentlemen ” of high standing ?—A. Yes, sir. 

6929. Q. Of moral integrity and worth ?-*-A. They are supposed to be. 

John M. Lawrence (p. 392) testifies, on examination-in-chief, that he 
“ repeated” at the November election: 

4029. Q. State whether you voted the democratic or the republican ticket at the last presi¬ 
dential election.—A. I voted a split ticket. I voted for John A. Griswold for governor, and 
for Horatio Seymour for president. I chucked the Hoffman ballot out both times. The 
straight democratic ticket was given me, but I would not vote it. 

4033. Q. Whom did you next talk to in reference to it ?—A. I cannot answer that question. 

4034. Q. How was information of it brought to this committee?—A. By Brady, through 
the Union League. 

4035. Q. Brady is a republican, is he?—A. Yes, sir ; he is the m who furnished me 
with the Griswold tickets. I saw him before I had voted, and he gave me a full republican 
ticket and wanted me to vote it, and I would not do that. 

4036. Q. You told him that you were not a legal voter?—A. He knew before that I had 
registered three times, once legally and twice illegally. 

James Melville (p. 425) testifies to “repeating.” He does not state, 
however, ’which ticket he “ repeated.” His true character appears quite 
fully in the following extract from his testimony, (p. 426:) 

4258. Q. What has been your business ?—A. I have been in no business. 

4259. Q. How long have you been here ?—A. About three years. 

4260. Q. Have you got a family?—A. Not in this country. I have one child in England. 
I have had no business since I have been in this country. I brought plenty of money over 
with me; a pretty fair share, about £600. 

4261. Q. Did you ever invest it in anything?—A. I have gambled a good deal. 

4262. Q. Gambled it pretty much all away ?—A. Yes, sir. 

4263. Q. Did you ever make anything by gambling?—A. Yes, sir. 

4264. Q. How much have you on hand now ?—A. I cannot say; I have very little. 

4265. Q. Have you ever been arrested for any criminal offence ?—A. No, sir. 

4266. Q. Where have you done your gambling?—A. All over New York. 

Geo. Melville (p. 501) testifies to “repeating” five or six times at tlie late 
presidential election. The only place, however, he recollected having 


142 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


voted at was in Canal street. Witness didn’t know wkat ticket he 
voted. Witness says he first made a statement about illegal voting the 
day before he testified, at Wood’s office, Jersey City: 

524.”). Q. Were you drunk when you gave the statement^?—A. Not very drunk ; I had 
been drinking. 

5265. Q. When were you told that if you came here to testify you would not be harmed 
under the laws of the United States?—A. Yesterday morning. 

5266. Q. Who told you that?—A. My friend Smith. 

5267. Q. Did he read any law to you ?—A. No, he did not. The clerk at Taylors Hotel, 
however, read me the law. 

Francis Murray (p. 605) testifies to having voted three times at the 
late presidential election: 

6708. Q. What wards?—A. The 7th and 8th. 

6709. Q. In different districts?—A. I could not tell you as to that. I was pretty full of 
whiskey, to tell the truth about it. 

On cross-examination the witness swears (p. 606) that he could not 
recollect of having voted more than once. Further on, the following 
questions and answers occur: 

6756. Q. How long have you been here at the building ?—A. I havejbeen here ever since 
about 1 o’clock, I think. 

6757. Q. In Marshal Murray’s room?—A. Yes, sir. 

6758. Q. How many of you were in there ?—A. I could not tell you how many there was ; 
it was full most of the time. 

John McCabe (p. 609) testifies to having u repeated ” eight or nine 
times at the late presidential election. The ticket was supposed by him to 
have been democratic: 

6802. Q. Were you right drunk all day?—A. Yes, sir, I was drunk all day. 

6803. Q. Then you cannot recollect much of what did transpire?—A. No, sir, I cannot,. 
(P. 619.) 

6809. Q. You are a democrat, I suppose?—A. Yes, sir. 

6810. Q. You would not vote the republican ticket if you were sober, I suppose ?—A. I 
don’t believe I would. 

6811. Q. You would be just as likely to vote the republican ticket when you were drunk 1 — 
A. Yes, if I was beastly drunk. 

6812. Q. As drunk as you were that day?—A. Yes, sir ; just as likely to vote the republi¬ 
can ticket as any. (P. 610.) 

The witness further testified to having been over to Wood’s office at 
Jersey City, (p. 610,) and made a statement about “ repeating.” 

John J. Mullen (p. 642) testifies to having “repeated” largely in the 
matter of registration, at the instance of Dennis Hogan, brother of 
Police Justice Edward Hogau; on cross-examination, however, he testi¬ 
fies as follows: 

7109. *Q. Did you know it was unlawful to register in that way?—A. Yes. 

7110. Q. What made you do it?—A. To get in with these parties, and to find out what 
kind of a swindle was going on, in order that I might expose them. 

7111. Q. Who put you up to do this ?—A. Superintendent of Police John A. Kennedy; 
he told me to find out all that I could. 

7112. Q. When did Kennedy tell you this ?—A. He told me on Sunday morning before 
election ; it was too late then to capture those papers. 

7113. Q. Did you see Kennedy the second time?—A. Yes, sir; I was five hours in the 
building, while they were taking my statement. 

7132. Q. How many times have you been convicted of criminal offence ?—A. I have been 
convicted twice ; tha,t is all I recollect. 

7133. Q. No more than twice ?—A. I have been convicted twice for assault and battery, 
and twice for petty larceny. 

7134. Q. What was the punishment for assault and battery ?—A. One month in the Tombs 
the first time, and two months the second time. 

7135. Q. When were you convicted first of larceny?—A. In 1866. 

7139. Q. You were tried by a jury ?—A. Yes. 

7140. Q. And found guilty?—A. Yes; of petty larceny. 

7141. Q. What was your sentence?—A. Six months’ imprisonment and $100 fine. 

7142. Q. Did you serve out your six months ?—A. Yes. 

7143. Q. How long have you been in the penitentiary altogether ?—A. About two years. 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


143 


By reference to tlie testimony of Police Justice Edward Hogan, (p. 
604, j it will be seen that he states that Mullin is a notorious thief, and 
that he would not believe him under oath. 

James Nichols (p. 485) testifies to having “ repeated” six times at the 
November election, all in the 22 d ward. There was something like 
27 in the party with him. In answer to the question, “ Who procured 
you to come here f 7 the witness replied as follows: 

A. Parties sent me here. 

5007. Q. Who were they?—A I came here partly by myself. I thought the thing was 
right. I saw about this committee sitting here in the papers. 

5008. Q. At whose request did you come ?—A. I decline to answer. 

The testimony of Nichols is best explained by that of John Norton, 
(p. 570.)—recalled at his own request—who testifies that when he was 
first before the committee lie gave the name of Jas. Nichols. His real 
name is John Norton. The following extract from his testimony dis¬ 
closes the means whereby men were procured through the agency of the 
“ Jersey City office 77 to testify falsely before the committee for money: 

6173. Q. You did not act as a repeater ?—A. No, sir. 

6174. Q. State what money you got for making your statement the other day, and from 
whom you got it?—A. I received $5, in Jersey City. 

6175. Q. For the statement you made the other day?—A. Yes, sir; I also received $5 
here at this hall. 

6176. Q. State who got you to go over to Jersey City.—A. A young man by the name of 
Samuel Baker; he received the money from Colonel Wood ; he gave me$5 to go over there, 
and $5 for giving my evidence here. 

6212. Q. How many times did you vote upon the day of election?—A. I voted once in 
the 8th ward ; I don’t know what the district is ; it is right between Amity and Bleeker. I 
gave the right name. (p. 571.) 

Alexander Ostander (pp. 223, 224) testifies to seeing a gang of men 
going from one voting place to another, changing caps, &c., but he can¬ 
not say that any of them voted more than once. 

On further examination he testifies as follows: 

2288. Q. What political party do you belong to ?—A. I am a republican. 

2289. Q. Do you belong to a secret political organization ?—A. I belong to the Union 
League. 

2290. Q. Is that a secret organization ?—A. Well, I suppose it is in some respects. 

Chas. Reilly (p. 473) testifies to “gangs 77 of “repeaters 77 going around 
from place to place during the progress of the registration in the city 
of New York 5 says he voted four times under assumed names. Thinks 
he voted the democratic ticket, (p. 474.) On cross-examination he tes¬ 
tifies as follows: 

4837. Q. What induced you to go into this business ?—A. A friend of mine. 

4838. Q. Are you a gambler?—A. No, sir; I used to gamble a little, and got broke. 

4839. Q. Have you ever been indicted for any offence?—A. I was indicted for assault and 
battery, but the"charge was withdrawn before it was brought up. 

Further on (same page) he discloses the practice which prevailed in 
the “army of the Potomac 77 during a republican administration: 

4851. Q. Are members of the fire department authorized to vote at 18 years of age?— 
A. Nobody objected to my having a vote, and I supposed I had a right to vote. I was in 
the army, and everybody voted there. 

4852. Q. In what army were you in ?—A. In the army of the Potomac. 

4853. Q. Were you ever naturalized?—A. I served in the army, and I supposed that na¬ 
turalized me. 

The witness was slightly in error in supposing that he was naturalized 
and entitled to vote simply by serving in the army. Having served and 
received an honorable discharge are the conditions precedent to naturaliza¬ 
tion in any other than the ordinary mode. We have no doubt, how¬ 
ever, that he told the truth when he said “ everybody had a vote in the 
army , 77 because that was under congressional and republican auspices. 


144 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


George W. Walling, (p. 347) inspector of the metropolitan police of 
the city of New York, testifies that Superintendent Kennedy sent for 
him and introduced him to a young man whom he (Kennedy) said, 
“ knew something about parties who were registering for the purpose 
of repeating.” It seems that this young man piloted the witness to 
No. 29 East Broadway, whereupon lie, (the witness) together with other 
officers of police, “ seized a book that was on a table, at which young men 
were sitting, and we took the eight persons whom we found there, with 
the book, to the police headquarters,” (p. 348.) 

The book, according to the inference to be drawn from the witnesses’ 
statements, was used by “repeaters” for the purpose of recording ficti¬ 
tious names. The witness further stated that the book had been in the 
possession and under the control of Kennedy, police superintendent, 
since he captured it. The character of the book may be inferred, how¬ 
ever, from the following question and answer, (p. 350.) 

3708. Q. Do you find the following entries in the book ? “ Grand Army of the Republic. 

Many men of many-.” “Early and Often Association will hold their third annual 

ball.”—A. Yes, sir. 

William Wood (p. 487) testifies that he voted from 16 to 20 times in 
the late presidential election. He voted in the 10th and 7th wards, and 
cannot remember any of the names upon which he voted. 

The witness, on cross-examination, stated he received compensation 
for his u repeating ” but declined to say by whom it was paid. 

On further examination, however, it turns out that the witness was 
from Wood’s Jersey City* office, and as a matter of course could only 
testify in one way. After having been over there, on page 488, the fol¬ 
lowing questions were put to him: 

5056. Q. Who did you see about it in reference to coming here to testify?—A. I do not 
know the man’s name. 

5057. Q. Where did you see him?—A. In Jersey City. 

5058. Q. What place?—A. Taylor’s Hotel. 

5059. Q. How many persons were present at that place at that time ?—A. Three or four. 

5060. Q. How came you to go there?—A. A friend of mine brought me over there. 

5061. Q. Who was he?—A. I could not tell you his name. 

Wm. Wilson (p. 512) testifies as follows: 

5425. Q. State what frauds were committee at the last presidential election of which you 
have any knowledge.—A. I voted a good many times myself at that election; I cannot tell 
how many times; I voted once in Canal street; I was intoxicated most of the day and could 
not recollect where I voted. 

5426. Q. Can you remember whether you voted more than once ?—A. I could not exactly 
say whether I did or not; I got pretty drunk after I voted the first time. 

It appears tliat tbis witness also came from “ Wood’s Jersey City office.” 

5452. Q. Where did you go yesterday to make a statement of what you were sworn to 
here ?—A. I went over in Jersey City yesterday. ( did not suppose I would have to answer 
any more questions here than what I stated in my affidavit in Jersey City. 

5453. Q. With whom did you go to Jersey City yesterday?—A. I went over by myself. 

5454. Q. At whose request?—A. At the request of a man by the name of Smith; I do 
not know his first name. 

On further examination the witness testified that he “ was drunk when 
he voted,” (p. 514.) Witness does not say for whom he voted. 

John Fox testifies at page C30. 

6969. I voted four or five times at the last presidential election, in the 8th, 9th, and 15th 
wards ; I believe I voted the republican ticket; I do not know the names that I voted on. 1 
got the name and address on a slip of paper. There was a crowd with me, but I cannot 
say whether they voted or not. 

James Allen testifies at page 632. 

6980. I was engaged last presidential election in repeating in the interest of the republican 
party ; there were four or five in the company; they were all repeaters ; they repeated four 
or five times; I only repeated three times myself. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


145 


Robert Costello testifies at page 624. 

6937. I voted at the last presidential election seven or eight times. I voted the Grant and 
Griswold ticket. I voted at the 8th district, 15th ward. There was a whole crowd of us 
going around—about 20. They all voted the same ticket. They voted about as many times 
as I did. 

John Clark testifies same page. 

6939. I voted at the last presidential election. I voted for Grant and Griswold. I voted 
five times at least in the several districts of the 8th ward. I was short of money at the time 
and could not find any easier way of getting money. I was with a gang of seven or eight. 
They voted as I did. I cannot tell how many times they voted. I voted in Greene street, 
Thompson street, and Renwick street. 

Cornelius Dolierty testifies at page 632. 

6981. I voted eight or nine times at the last presidential election; I voted in Perry street, 
Washington street, Hudson street, twice in Prince street, in Fourth street, near Jay, in 
Crosby street, Greene street, and Spring street; I voted for Griswold ; I voted the full repub¬ 
lican ticket; I guess there were 20 or 22 in the gang; they all voted the same ticket; some 
of them voted 18 or 20 times; I left in the afternoon at 2 o’clock; I voted once under the 
name of Williams; that is the only name I can recollect; I was promised $25 for voting, but 
I did not get it. 

/ 

John Glenn on testifies at page 625: 

6941. I voted at the last presidential election. I voted the republican ticket. Several of 
my friends came around saying that money could be made easy, and that no one would 
know anything about it. I voted in the 15th, 9th, and 16th wards. I do not know how 
many times I voted—eight or nine times. There were about a dozen in the party with me. 
I only know one of them. I think his name is Frost. He handed me the republican ticket 
to use. 

Peter Loftus testifies at page 632: 

6978. I voted three times at the last presidential election ; I voted the republican ticket; 
there may have been five or six in the gang; they were all repeaters ; they voted the same 
ticket that I did; I voted in the 4th district of the 8th ward, in Grand street; that is my 
proper district; I voted in the 1st district, in Greene street, and in the 6th, in Prince street. 
The names were furnished to me through other hands ; I cannot recollect the names. I was 
paid $8; I cannot' say who paid it to me. 

Charles McCarthy testifies at page 631: 

6971. I voted at the last presidential election in this city between seven and eight times ; 
I voted the republican ticket. There were as many as a dozen with me ; they all voted the 
same ticket; I voted in the 4th district of the 8th ward, in the 1st distrrct, and in fact in 
pretty nearly all the districts of the ward. I voted once on my own name, once in the name 
of Jeremiah Sullivan, once in the name of Charles O’Conner; the other names I do not 
recollect. 

Jacob Rome testifies at page 625: 

6943. I voted at the last presidential election nine or ten times, in the 8th and 15th wards ; 
I voted the republican ticket; I voted on different names ; they were furnished on slips of 
paper; I do not know who gave them to me. There were some 15 or 20 in the party. I 
cannot say how many times they voted. I suppose they voted as often as I did; perhaps 
more. It was the republican party that we were trying to help. 

Paul Volmer testifies at page 631: 

6973. I voted four times at the last presidential election, in the 15th ward; I do not recol¬ 
lect the places I voted the republican ticket; I got $10 for it; I was intoxicated at the 
time. There were about ten of us in company; they all voted the republican ticket; the 
others voted as often as I did, and perhaps oftener. 

This concludes a review of the testimony of 40 witnesses, all , or nearly 
all who testified on the subjects of “repeaters” and “repeating,” and the 
minority of the committee feel that they can confidently appeal to the 
calm and deliberate judgment of the House in support of the position 
assumed by them at the outset, that no considerable number of fraudulent 
votes are proven to have been actually cast at the election in New York 
city last November, and that there was nothing extraordinary in the 
number that were in fact cast at that election, 

H. Rep. Com. 31-10 



146 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


GOVERNOR HOFFMAN AND MAYOR HALL. 

These distinguished gentlemen do not escape the criticism of the 
majority. But they are so well known in their personal and official 
characters to the citizens of New York, and their official conduct during 
the late elections were so entirely free from fault, that we shall allude to 
them but briefly. During the canvass prior to the November election, 
Governor Hoffman was mayor of New York. The contest was exceed¬ 
ingly earnest and attended with unusual excitement. Under date of 
October 31,1868, upon knowledge and information concerning the pur¬ 
poses of certain republican leaders in connection with the election to 
take place three days afterwards, which gave him great apprehensions 
for the peace and order of the city, he issued an official proclamation, 
designed to secure and preserve the public peace, and to deter unscrupu¬ 
lous men from its disturbance or the violation of the election laws. That 
proclamation had no other purpose, and it tended very greatly to pro¬ 
mote the end in view. The circumstances and information upon which 
it was issued are very fully stated by Mr. Hoffman in his testimony, at 
page 99. That testimony is too lengthy for quotation in this report, and 
any attempt to abbreviate it would impair its force and completeness. 
It is therefore merely referred to. The high character and personal 
purity of Mr. Hoffman, both as a citizen and magistrate, are in no degree 
affected by anything elicited in this investigation. 

The majority, in their report, assail the conduct of Hon. A. Oakey 
Hall, at present mayor of New York, and secretary of the democratic 
State committee of New York during the recent presidential campaign. 
The two prominent allegations against Mr. Hall, are predicated upon the 
fact that he was one of a committee who signed a call for a meeting of the 
democratic canvassers of the city of New York, on the Sunday preceding 
the election in November, at Tammany Hall. And that he was the author 
of a certain circular purporting to emanate from the chairman of the dem¬ 
ocratic State committee, (Hon. Samuel J. Tilden,) calling upon democrats 
throughout the State to forward the result of the election in their several 
districts to Tammany Hall as soon as possible after it was made known in 
' said districts. This circular was marked “ confidential,” and that word, in 
the opinion of the majority, was of dreadful import in such a connection. 
It is assumed first, by the majority, that the meeting of canvassers at 
“Tammany” was for an illegal object, and that the suggestions, or rather 
recommendations, of that “mysterious” circular explain that object, 
which, according to the ■partisan construction given it by the majority, 
was none other than this: That the aforesaid canvassers were fully ad¬ 
vised of the alleged design of the author of said circular, and that in 
pursuance of said design they (the canvassers) should count the ballots 
as slowly as possible, in order that time might be afforded to ascertain 
how the State (outside the city) had voted ; and if the result was unfa¬ 
vorable to the democracy, a sufficient number of republican votes cast 
in the city might be thrown out, or else changed to democratic votes. 

That this assumption is not true in point of fact, we need only refer 
to other portions of the report of the majority, wherein it is substan¬ 
tially alleged that the democrats, by a well-organized system of “repeat¬ 
ing” in the city, had taken care beforehand not to be defeated, and tes¬ 
timony is quoted by the majority to show that this system was generally 
carried out. 

Mr. Hall, however, (page 327,) explains the real objects of the meeting 
at “ Tammany,” the Sunday preceding the election, as follows : 

The main object of the meeting- was to consult as to the effect of naturalization certificates. 
The meeting occupied, I should think, about an hour. Another reason of the meeting was 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


147 


to say that instructions would be prepared for the inspectors and sent to them. The year 
before a pamphlet instructing them as to their duties was distributed by the board of police 
to each inspector and canvasser, by order of the board, and was prepared by one of the com¬ 
missioners, one of the clerks, and myself, who am counsel to the police board. This year 
the board, in its discretion, agreed not to distribute them. The republican party reprinted 
the same thing in substance, with some amendments taking different views on some matters, 
and we reprinted it exactly without changing it, and with a preface. We thought to have 
got it in time to have distributed it at that meeting, but it was not ready and had to be sent 
through the post office. 

And now in regard to that “circular” of awful import. 

At page 335 Mr. Hall swears: 

3557. Q. Your object, then, was to get the returns from the country before they got the 
returns from New York?—A. No; our object was to prevent their getting the New York 
vote; it was nothing to us to get their vote, except as we opened the wires and made them 
send their vote. 

3558. Q. The effect of it, then, was that you would get the vote from the country before 
they could get the vote from the city ?—A. That would be one effect. 

3559 Q. Was there a change in that respect from the practice of former years ?—A. No, 
sir; no change in the practice, except to some extent. I have been an inspector myself; 

* and a great many inpectors would always canvass each name on the electoral ticket. Some 
would do so because there are always bets as to who shall run highest on the ticket, and who 
shall run the lowest. We had another object in this, and that was we thought the vote 
would be rather close, and that we might elect some of our electors and might not elect 
others. The tickets are not always correctly printed. It often happens that two or three 
names are left off the ticket, and it would not do, therefore, to count each ticket as having 
upon it 33 names, when it might only have 30 or 31. 

The discussions in other parts of this report of other questions arising 
in this investigation and of the evidence in connection therewith, con¬ 
clusively show that the assumptions of the majority in reference to the 
intentions of Mr. Hall, are utterly baseless and visionary. In order to 
accomplish any such fraud as that alleged to have been contemplated by 
Mr. Hall, each and every canvasser in a majority of the districts of the city 
would have had to acquiesce therein, and when we recall the fact which 
appears in a dozen places in the testimony, that these canvassers are 
appointed by the police authorities, with especial reference to the equal 
representation of both parties on these boards in every district, it is 
impossible to see how any such fraud could be consummated unless the 
majority of the committee are willing to admit that the members of 
the republican party are as corrupt as they represent those of the demo¬ 
cratic party in New York to be. 

The attempt of a majority to create a suspicion that the object of the 
State committee in thus seeking to obtain an early report from the country 
districts was an improper one, by introducing in that connection the 
name of Colonel Samuel North, who they say, “ during the war had 
been arrested and tried by the military authorities for making false votes 
under the soldiers’ voting law,” is an unwarrantable and unjustifiable 
assault upon that gentleman. 

There is no record of his conviction for any such offence, and without 
it he stands as guiltless before the law and the country as any member 
of the committee or of the House. Besides, every member of the com¬ 
mittee, and every intelligent man in the country, is well aware that the 
history of the political and personal outrages committed by the republi¬ 
can party during the war furnishes no example of a more cruel, unjustifi¬ 
able, or tyrannical arrest and imprisonment of a private citizen without 
the slightest regard to personal liberty or the forms of law, t\ian that of 
Colonel North. 


148 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


CONCLUSION, 

There are many other questions of minor importance which arise out 
of this investigation, which it would be proper for us briefly to consider, 
but the time allowed us for the preparation of any report was so short 
and insufficient that we were compelled to omit further reference to them. 

The majority in their report devote a great deal of space to the con¬ 
sideration of certain proposed remedies for the defects in existing natur¬ 
alization laws, and the prevention of the evils complained of. These 
propositions are radical and complicated in their nature. The minority 
are unable to concur in any of them as single and distinct propositions. 
The extent to which we do concur in any of them is sufficiently indicated 
in former parts of this report. We therefore defer their further consid¬ 
eration until they shall have been proposed for enactment by Congress. 

It is eminently due to the cause of truth, and justice to ourselves de¬ 
mands that we shall state in conclusion, that the minority, during the 
entire investigation, possessed extremely unequal facilities for either the 
procurement of witnesses or the taking of testimony before the commit¬ 
tee. Otherwise, we say with profound conviction of its truth, that we 
could, by proper rebutting and contradicting testimony, have triumph¬ 
antly answered and destroyed the material basis upon which the majority 
rest their grave assumptions of a democratic conspiracy to perpetrate 
frauds and carry elections. Indeed, these assumptions, after the most ex 
parte investigation, And no decent or substantial support in our record. 

M. C. KERR. 

L, W. ROSS. 


40th Congress, ) HOUSE OF EEPEESENTATIVES. i Eeport 
3d /Session . j . ( No. 41. 


NEW YOEK ELECTION FEAUDS. 


March 1, 1869.—Laid on the table and ordered to be printed. 


Mr. William Lawrence, from tlie Select Committee oil Alleged New 
York Election Frauds, submitted the following 

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT . 1 

fThe numbers in this report refer to the numbers of questions and answers in the volume of 

evidence. ] 

The Select Committee on Alleged New York Election Frauds report: 

That it is deemed proper to present the conclusions of the committee 
on some topics not considered in the former report, and to state some 
additional facts pertinent to the investigations ordered by the House. 
So far as remedial legislation by Congress is concerned, it can make but 
little difference what political party may have been guilty of frauds, for 
the fact of their existence and their character more especially points out 
the necessity of appropriate remedies. 

It is nevertheless due to the truth of history that great public wrongs 
should be traced to the proper source, and that has already been done 
as to the New York election frauds. 

. NO REPUBLICAN FRAUDS. 

There is certainly no evidence to implicate any republican organiza 
tion in fraud, nor to show any general or systematic plan by the repub- 
lican party, or by members of it, to violate the election laws. 

Frauds upon a great and extended scale could not be accomplished by 
any political party through its party machinery without the knowledge, 
sanction, or connivance of some of its prominent leaders. 

As against the republican party there is not only no evidence of such 
frauds, but the meagre efforts to show complicity in isolated cases has 
not risen to the dignity of proof. 

It may be proper to notice some of the evidence on this subject. 

NATURALIZATION. 

But a single witness attempted to make any charge deserving notice 
as to naturalization frauds by any republican in New York city. It is 
quite evident he was engaged in naturalization frauds for the democratic 
politicians, for he says he signed his “name as a witness in all these cases 
at No. 1 Centre street, and in the basement of the old City Hall, where 
the sheriff’s office was.” Both of these places were notoriously managed 
in the interest of the democratic party. He only attempts to impli- 

1 The evidence recently printed shows facts on several subjects, as follows: 

Registering illegally and “repeating .”—Evidence, 9133, 9166, 9167, 9169, 9185, 9186. 

Illegal naturalizations. —Evidence, 9136, 9137, 9153, 9156, 9160, 9162, 9165, 9167, 9169, 
9172, proves 4,000 illegal certificates—9174, 9198, 9313. 

Immunity for election frauds—Discharge of parties arrested.—Evidence, 9136, 9150, 9165. 

Obstructions thrown in the way of investigation. —Evidence, pages 842, 847. 

Delay in canvassing —Evidence, 9158, 9246. 

Ballot-box stuffing. —Evidence, 9184. 

Number of naturalizations in supreme court. —Confirmation of the original count, as sworn 
to by Webster, Gillespie, and Meeks, 9186. 

Terrorism. —Evidence, 9189. 







150 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


cate a single republican, and as to him the witness says he never got 
u acquainted with him well enough to speak to him until three or four 
days before the election for governor, (November 3,) and is certain of the 
fact that he never had any conversation with him until two or three days 
before the election. 1 The evidence shows that in consequence of the 
requirement in the constitution of New York that men must be citizens 
for ten days before they can vote, the courts ceased naturalizing Octo¬ 
ber 23. 

There was but a single republican naturalization office in New York, 
and it is creditable to the integrity of its managers that they kept a record 
of the names of all persons naturalized, with the names of witnesses, all 
produced before the committee, yet no fraud on the naturalization laws 
as to these has been shown in any single instance. 

THE CHARACTER OF THE DEMOCRATIC EVIDENCE. 

The enormous democratic election frauds stood so strangely in contrast 
with the integrity of purpose which marked the conduct of the repub¬ 
licans of New York city that it is perhaps not strange that unscrupulous 
men would attempt to impose on the committee witnesses willing to com¬ 
mit perjury in an effort to injure those who aided in exposing frauds. 
A feebie effort of this sort is found in the introduction of George B. Gif¬ 
ford and Henry Darling, 2 the purport of whose statements is that John 
H. White sent a messenger to them to meet him at the Union League 
Club, in pursuance of which they met him on the sidewalk, when he 
offered to pay them liberally for swearing to an affidavit to be drawn by 
him charging frauds of which they had no knowledge on the democratic 
party. 

The character of these witnesses may be inferred from the evidence of 
Gifford, as follows: 

5703. Q. Did you intimate to your friend, Darling*, that there was any money in it?—A. 
No, sir. I did not know whether there was or not. 

5704. Q. Was there nothing* said about money?—A. Not on the first evening. I told him, 
after I came away from there, that if they wanted anybody to commit a fraud we might as 
well make something out of it as not. 

5704. Q. How were you to make anything out of it?—A. I thought we might come down 
here and make some statement that would not amount to anything, and then get them to 
pay us for it. 

Gifford had been in a republican organization in the 21st ward, and 
his name had been struck from the rolls ; 3 and ready for revenge, he had a 
conversation with Banker, 4 deputy of the notorious sheriff, O’Brien, and 
then he was ready to testify. 

The pretended “ messenger” is a myth, who is not produced. Gifford 
is contradicted as to a statement of fact by Christopher Pulman. 5 Judge 
White, himself a citizen of long standing, 6 one of the most honorable of 
the legal profession in the city, pronounces the whole story a fabrication 
without any show of truth, and he was not at the place at the time when 
the alleged interview is said to have occurred. 

A still more feeble movement is made by the evidence of a man pass¬ 
ing under different assumed names, Lawrence Farrell alias William 
Pearce, to show not that testimony was improperly procured, but that an 
effort was made to do so. The evidence itself 7 fails to prove any such 
effort, and it is otherwise abundantly shown that none such was made. 8 

1 Evidence, 7364. 2 Evidence, 5139—5J62. 3 Evidence, 5149. 4 Evidence, 5161. 

: 5 Evidence, 6719. 6 Evidence. 4779. 7 Evidence, 653? 8 Evidence, 6629—6648. 




ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


151 


Yet, in u the views of the minority f in the absence of any more reliable 
means of attack, this is dignified into an important topic of considera¬ 
tion as “ attempted bribery by Union League officers,” when it only proves 
the perjury of democratic witnesses, and gives the means of estimating 
the value of other evidence, of which this is a fair specimen. 

NO REPUBLICAN “REPEATING.” 

Some evidence was taken, it would seem, for the purpose of proving 
repeating in the interest of the republican party . 1 There were but a 
few witnesses, all of a class , 2 who appeared at one time, and who seem 
to have been a gang somehow imposed on the committee, whose demeanor 
on the witness’ stand and whose character could inspire neither credence 
nor respect. It is a fact that there is no evidence of any hind that any repub¬ 
lican was engaged in false registering in the interest of the republican party, 
and without false registering there could be no repeating. This itself would 
be an almost conclusive answer to any charges made on evidence so 
destitute of credit, and so unreliable as that adduced. 

The evidence of “ repeating” in the interest of the democratic party 
is established by proof of the seizure of the books of some of the repeat¬ 
ers and by numerous witnesses who are entirely reliable, including elec¬ 
tion officers and others. 


STANLEY AND WILKES. 

Evidence has been taken with a view to draw from it an inference that 
Florence Scannel, who was a democrat, had a conversation with Marcus 
Cicero Stanley, in company with George Wilkes, at the Fifth Avenue 
Hotel, a week before the November election, in which it was agreed that 
Scannel should register a number of names and leave them unvoted for 
republicans to vote on in consideration that Scannel should have two 
republican canvassers for the purpose of making a fraudulent canvass or 
Count of votes against the republicans 3 at the December election. 

It is sufficiently proved that Scannel procured false registration 4 in 
the interest of the democratic party, but there is no evidence of a single 
republican vote being cast on any one of his falsely-registered names . 5 

1 O’Brien, 5486; contradicted by Murray, 5510. 

2 Fox, 6969; contradicted, 9171. McCarthy, 6971; see evidence, 7246, to impeach. 
Volmer, 6973. Loftus, 697S ; see evidence, 7246 and 9171, to impeach. Allen, 6980 ; con¬ 
tradicted evidence, page 657 and 9171. Doherty, 6981 ; contradicted evidence, page 657, 
9171. Costello. 6937. Clark, 6939. Glennon, 6941 ; see 6942, 6944, 9171, 9184 and 9198. 
Roone, 6943 ; see 6942, 6944 and 6982. Glennon and Roone contradict each other, 6942 
and 6944. 

3 Scannel, 5754; contradicted, 7055, 5595. 

Scannel. 8472 ; but see 9196, 5595. 

Gorrey, 6168 ; see 5595, 7055,5595. 

Ferguson, 6097 ; contradicted, 6163 ; see 3196, 3258. Ferguson is a clerk to one of Sherift 
O’Brien’s deputies. 

McGowan, 5576 ; see 5595. McGowan is another clerk in the sheriff’s office, and re-regis¬ 
tered under a false name—6092, 6091. 

O’Brien, 5486; contradicted, 5510, 5595. 

Jones, 5867 ; contradicted, 5915; see 6093, 5595. 

Hogau, 5648; contradicted, 5689. 

Stanley contradicts these witnesses, 7055 ; see 6089. 

Wilkes was in Europe and his evidence could not be procured, 6846, 7062. 

It is not probable that Stanley would engage in republican frauds when he voted in Novem¬ 
ber for the democratic candidate for governor and mayor, 7066. 

4 Evidence, 5767, 68. 

6 And it is abundantly shown that there was no purpose to have republican votes cast on 
any of these false registries. Stanley testifies— 

7078. Q. State if Scannel made any request about getting canvassers appointed in his interest? 

A. He handed me two names upon a paper, one of which, I believe, was Gorrey. I took the names and 
went to Mr. Mannierre, one of the police commissioners. These men were not appointed. Scannel gave me 



152 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


The story is incredible that republicans would agree to procure the 
appointment of canvassers to make a fraudulent canvass for democrats. 
And the alleged interview and arrangement is effectually disproved by 
its inherent improbability, the contradictory character of the evidence 
in support of it, and by direct proof of its falsity . 1 

There is no pretence that this evidence in any way implicates any 
republican organization, officer, candidate or citizen having its interests 
specially in charge. 

These charges are of a character similar to others which signally failed, 
were utterly incredible, or were completely disproved . 2 

COLONEL WILLIAM P. WOOD. 

The minority of the committee, referring to certain gentlemen of high 
character for integrity, and their services in ferreting out the democratic 
frauds, say: 

Besides these gentlemen, it also appears in evidence that Howard T. Marston and George 
Bliss, ji\, attorneys, William P. Wood, a United States detective, and other members of the 
League, were employed in the same business. 

Howard T. Marston is not a member of the League, is a democrat, 
who made speeches for his party during the last presidential election, 
but he is a gentleman upon whose integrity there rests no taint or sus¬ 
picion. Will iam P. Wood is not a member of the League, and had no em¬ 
ployment from it, nor did the officers of the League, or the committee, 
know that he had discovered material witnesses until they were pro¬ 
duced. He is a detective, who has so far shared the confidence of the 
administration of Andrew Johnson as to be retained in its service. 

The minority of the committee criticise his mode of obtaining testi¬ 
mony. The minority, as well as the majority, were furnished, in many 
instances, with memoranda of what witnesses knew, and this could only 
be procured from the witnesses themselves. 

The memoranda furnished to the majority were always open to the 
inspection of the whole committee when desired, while the minority did 
not always deem it advisable to extend the same privilege to the majority . 1 


these two names upon a paper, and requested that I would have them appointed as canvassers, with the prom¬ 
ise that if I did so a number of men whom he had registered should not vote. I asked him his object. He said 
he wanted the canvassers for his election in December as assistant aldermen. He wanted the Tammany Hall 
nomin tion, which had been refused him, and then he wanted to run on an independent ticket. I presented 
those a names to Mr. Mannierre. He declined to appoint them, upon the ground that they were indicted in 
Philadelphia, having been carried there by Scannel to vote at the October election. I returned to Scannel 
with that message from Mr. Mannierre, and he said, in his familiar way : “Boss, you must get me out of this 
thing, because I have got to go to Philadelphia every spring to buy horses.” 

By Mr. ROSS: 

7079. Q. What benefit was to accrue to the republican party from this arrangement ? 

A. He was to vote for the republican assemblyman in that district, to beat Jim Irwin, whom he had pre¬ 
viously shot in a bar-room fight. 

The object seems to have been to prevent Scannel from voting on all the false registries he 
had made. 5561, 5792-97. 

1 McGowan, 5575: “ It is utterly incredible that republicans would go to clerk’s in Sheriff 
O’Brien’s office.” See 5510. 

Donohue, 5628; contradicted, 5645. 

Sullivan’s, 5603 ; contradicted, 5626. 

2 The evidence, page 625, show r s the testimony of John Glennon, who was called by Mr. 
Ross, as follows: 

I was not summoned to come here. I was asked to come here by a man named Greene, who owns the 
bar-room in the opera-house on Fourteenth street; I do not know his politics. The paper now produced to 
me, containing my statement, was written in a little office across the street, close by the sheriff’s office. It 
was written about two hours ago. Jacob Roone was there. I do not know anything about Cook. I got 
nothing for going there, and no promise of anything. 

The chairman offered to prove the handwriting of the memorandum. 

Mr. ROSS objected, and withdrew the memorandum, saying that it was his private per and that he had 
only shown it through courtesy. 

See 6942-6944. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


153 


If Colonel Wood deserves criticism for producing witnesses, tlie censure 
should extend to those whose industry procured some of the numerous 
witnesses called by tlie minority. 

That some of the witnesses produced by Colonel Wood were men of 
bad character is indisputable , 1 but they are, in many respects, corrobo¬ 
rated, and the proof of fraud does not rest alone nor mainly on their evi¬ 
dence, but is established fully, independently of it . 2 

WHO RESPONSIBLE FOR FRAUDS. 

The minority of.the committee in their “news” say: 

We invite especial attention to the important fact, which we desire to emphasize, that it is 
not, in our entire record, satisfactorily shown by credible or unimpeached testimony, that anyone 
or more clerks, judges, or other officers of any of the courts, was, with knowledge, directly or 
indirectly a party to or participant in a single one of these frauds. 

How far this may be a correct deduction from the evidence will appear 
from its examination and from the report already made. 

On this subject the following evidence may be appropriate 

H. M. Clapp sworn: 

I am a police officer attached to the 5th precinct of the oth ward. I knew James Murphy. 
I had occasion to arrest him on the 14th of October, at 6-^ o’clock p. m., for attempting to 
register illegally at the 8th election district, 5th ward ; I took him to the station-house before 
the captain, who detained him until the morning, and then took him before Judge Dowling, 
who ordered me to take the prisoner to the superior court before Judge McCunn, where the 
prisoner had received his papers. I state! the circumstances to the judge. He ordered me 
to take the prisoner into an adjoining room. He shortly followed, and swore the prisoner. 
The judge said to him, “What is your name?” Said he, “James Murphy.” “ Where do 
you live?” “63 Watt street.” “ Where did you get this paper?” It was a full naturali¬ 
zation paper. He had never declared his iutention He said, “ I got it at the Vanderbilt 
House.” “ Who gave it to you?” “One Marshal Murphy.” “What did you do with the 
paper then?” said the judge. “I took it down to the court the next day.” Who went with 
you ?” “ Nobody.” “ How did you get the paper, then ?” “I got it in this room, I believe.” 
The judge then turned to me, and said, “Officer, this man is under the influence of liquor.” 
I told the judge it was not so; that the man had been locked up all night, and had had nothing 
to drink since I arrested him. “ Well, then.” says he, “ he must be insane. You will take 
the prisoner back to Judge Dowling, and the paper with my compliments, and tell the judge 
to discharge him, and keep the paper.” I returned to the Tombs police court before Justice 
Dowling, and delivered the message of Judge McCunn. I will state that after I got out of 
the superior court room, I was called back by a messenger, who stated that Judge McCunn 
wanted to see me. He said, “ I understand you are in the habit of questioning parties who 
come to register.” I said, “Yes, sir.” He then remarked. “Don’t you do it any more.” I 
said “I will under orders.” He replied, “If you do I will punish you.” Said I, “Very 
well, I will suffer the consequences.” He then said, “ I will give you consequences.” I 
then left the superior court room and went to the Tombs. 3 

PROPRIETY OF THIS INVESTIGATION AND ITS SCOPE. 

Any attempt to divert public attention from the real facts and frauds 
proved , by a discussion of collateral and immaterial issues, must always 
betray the weakness and failure of a bad defence. And this will be 
especially so if the discussion of collateral issues is full of errors of fact 
and erroneous deductions. Tlie minority in their views say : 

This committee was called into being by this house, in compliance with a memorial from 
the Union League of New York. There was no contest pending to render it proper or 
necessary. 

The “memorial” was not from the “Union League of New York,”but 
“the Union League Club,” a totally distinct organization. Then again 
there was, and is, a contest pending over the election of one or more rep- 


1 See evidence, 6271, 6313, 6170, 6228, 5954, 4285, 7274. 

2 See report of committee, xlv; see Evidence, 7274. 

3 See evidence, 9292. 





154 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


resentatives in Congress, if that is deemed of any importance. Again 
tlie “views” say: 

It is not confined in its scope or purposes to investigations into the conduct of congres¬ 
sional elections, or*elections for electors for President and Vice-President, but extends to all 
elections for all kinds of officers of the State of New York at the November election in 1868. 
This involves an assertion of jurisdiction that does not rightfully exist in this house. 

The minority, nevertheless, discuss the wisdom of the State laws of 
New York, election frauds in other States, and the policy of congres¬ 
sional legislation on other subjects. 

But the resolution under which the committee was appointed, and the 
investigation by it, is confined in its scope and purpose to “irregularities 
and frauds alleged to have occurred in the city and State of New York 
affecting the recent election for representatives to Congress and electors 
of President and Vice-President,” and it does not “extend to all elec¬ 
tions for all kinds of officers of the State.” 

These grave errors in the outset are not calculated to inspire confi¬ 
dence in the accuracy of other portions of the “views.” 

THE FACILITIES FOR INVESTIGATION. 

The minority proceed to say: 

Iu addition to all these, the League placed at the service of the majority of the committee 
an indefinite number of messengers to serve their process and do the bidding of the officers 
of the committee and of the other attorneys and agents of the League. 

Even this cannot change the facts proved, or remedy the failure of a 
defence. Messengers residing in the city served process without 
expense to the government, and the minority had the benefit of their 
services and of messengers furnished in like manner by their political 
friends. 

The minority had every advantage of the official power and influence 
of the city to aid them. 

The minority proceed: 

The country, the House, and all impartial and just-minded men may readily infer from 
these facts the spirit, intent, interested and partisan motives which have served the majority 
of the committee, and have presided over the preparation of this case for the League. 

The motives which served the majority are no more important than 
those which served the minority, and cannot change inexorable facts or 
convert vice into virtue or fraud into duty. The motive to expose fraud 
is much more credible than that which commits it or serenes it from 
exposure. It is due to the Union League Club to say there is no evidence 
to impugn the motives of any member of it, unless an honest purpose to 
detect and prevent fraud deserves censure. 

THE REMEDIES. 

The minority of the committee say, in reference to election frauds— 

It appears to be the judgment of the majority that the remedy for these great evils can 
only come from Congress , and need not be expected to originate in or be provided by the 
States of the Union. 

The minority have evidently prepared their “views” without mature 
consideration, for this assertion that “it appears to be the judgment of 
the majority” “ that the remedy for these great evils can only come from Con- 
gress ” is made with a printed copy of the majority report in their hands, 
declaring that it is the duty of Congress to ascertain— 

When irregularities or fraud exist in the election of its members, so that the people, 
apprised of evils, may avert them in the future by personal vigilance, by making and enforcing 
proper legislative provisions in the States, and, above all, so that Congress shall apply 
remedies by adequate laws efficiently enforced. 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


155 


PERSONS OF FOREIGN BIRTH. 

The minority say: ' 

It is undoubtedly fair to assume that a spirit of hostility to persons of foreign birth, and 
of opposition to their free admission to the enjoyment of citizenship and suffrage, had much 
to do in the origin and conduct of this investigation. 

It is unjust to the committee to “ assume ” that which is unsustained 
by fact, reason, or evidence, but is contradicted by the opinions expressed 
in the report. 


THE CENSUS OF 1865. 

The minority attack the correctness of the census of 1865 by a com¬ 
parison with the census of 1860. The census of 3860 was notoriously 
too great, as it is liable to be where officers are paid by the number of 
persons reported, while the loss of population by the war justifies the 
integrity of the officers who made and of the evidence which shows the 
census of 1865 to be correct. But the deductions of the committee do 
not rest alone nor mainly on that census. 

FRAUDS IN PHILADELPHIA. 


The minority say: 

As Philadelphia gave a majority for Grant we have no outcry about its large vote. Per¬ 
haps it would be well to have a committee of investigation, as this committee would not 
allow the minority to introduce evidence that republican “ repeaters ” were sent from New 
York to Philadelphia. 

The committee might well be satisfied to limit their duties to the State 
required by the resolution under which they were acting. Since it has 
been stated in Congress by a responsible member 1 that one of the lead¬ 
ing democrats of Hew York, now under arrest by authority of this house, 
is indicted for illegal voting in Philadelphia, the suggestion of the mi¬ 
nority in favor of a committee is entitled to the most respecful considera¬ 
tion. 


THE LEAGUE AGAIN. 

The minority are pleased to refer to u the numerous and vigilant scav¬ 
engers of the League,” though no mention is made of Sheriff O’Brien’s 
deputies who hovered around the door of the committee-room and in the 
building where its sessions were held, arresting some of the witnesses 
soon after released for want of evidence to justify the arrest, and thus 
intimidating witnesses, until, with the approval of the whole committee, 
they were directed to retire from the building. 

WHY ILLEGAL VOTING NOT PUNISHED. 

The minority,- referring to election frauds, say: 

The officers in the practical government of the city of New York who could be most effect¬ 
ive to restrain or punish these wicked men are the officers of elections and of the police. If 
these were honest, vigilant, and faithful, and would co-operate to that end, these crimes 
could, in a very great degree, be prevented. Let it be remembered here that all these officers 
are appointed under republican auspices. 

And this is preceded in another portion of these u views” by a cap¬ 
tion, u The republican party control Hew York.” 

As a question of law neither officers of election nor of the police have 
power u to punish these wicked men.” 

hJudge Kelly, in House of Representatives. And see evidence of Stanley, 7078. 





156 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


The Metropolitan Police board is equally divided politically -, 1 at least 
half the election officers are democrats and a majority of the police force. 2 
The officer whose duty it is to prepare indictments, and the courts 
whose judges try, or whose duty it is to try offenders, are all of the dem¬ 
ocratic faith. How perfectly secure from all punishment are the men 
guilty of election frauds has already been shown. 

THE FACILITIES FOR INVESTIGATION AGAIN. 

The minority, in concluding their views, say: 

That the minority, during the entire investigation, possessed extremely unequal facilities 
for either the procurement of witnesses or the taking of testimony before the committee. 

This cannot affect the force of the material facts proved, and the com¬ 
mittee will not assume that it is offered as an apology for any failure to 
prove frauds as against republicans, or to vindicate democrats whose 
guilt is so palpable. The committee sat in New York from December 
21 to January 14, inclusive, and evidence, was subsequently taken in 
Washington. During all that time the minority had process for every 
witness they asked, the means of its service either by their own chosen 
messengers or those of the committee, and the right to examine their 
witnesses fully has never been denied. A sub-committee met on the Gth 
of February in New York city, and at other times elsewhere in the State, 
it is believed with equal facilities for the production of witnesses alike 
for the majority and minority; and evidence taken February 2, by Mr. 
Boss alone, with no one to cross-examine, was permitted to go on record. 

In New York city, in the nature of things, every advantage would be 
on the side of the democratic minority. 3 

For the great purpose of devising some means to prevent frauds, it is 
comparatively of little importance what men or what parties are respon¬ 
sible for them. Every just government is bound to ascertain their 
existence and apply the proper remedy. While the minority do not 
unite in any of the measures recommended in the hope of effecting a 
reform, they do not present any which would seem to remedy acknowl¬ 
edged evils. The evidence is submitted to the House with the deduc¬ 
tions which have been drawn from it all, and the remedial measures 
suggested to prevent frauds and irregularities in the election of repre¬ 
sentation to Congress and electors of President and Vice-President. If 
these shall contribute to secure a free, full, fair, and honest exercise of 
the elective franchise, the anxious and arduous labors of the committee 
will aid in accomplishing the purposes of the founders of the republic, 
and lasting benefits will accrue to mankind. 

1 Evidence, 317, 562, 568, 1236, 2739, 6675. 

2 See chapter V, former report, p. 53. 

3 The original report of the committee was made to the House February 23. Part II of 
the report was printed and furnished to all the members of the committee, including Messrs. 
Kerr and Ross, February 13, and Part I was printed and furnished in like manner Feb¬ 
ruary 20. The “views of the minority ” were not furnished to the chairman, or any mem¬ 
ber of the majority of the committee, and were only seen some days after they had been 
presented in the House and printed. 

This and the original report were written in the press of business, currcnte calarno, with¬ 
out any opportunity for revisiou. 




JOURNAL 


Of the Select Committee of the House of Representatives to investigate alleged 
frauds in the election in the State of New York. 

This committee was appointed by the House of Representatives on the 
14th of December, 1868, as appears from the following official report of 
the proceedings published in the Globe of December 15th: 

FRAUDULENT VOTING IN NEW YORK, 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. I present under the rule a memorial of the Union League club 
of New York, in reference to fraudulent voting in the city and State of New York; and I 
ask consent to offer the following resolution : 

Resolved , That the memorial from the Union League club of New York be printed, and 
that a select committee of seven be appointed to investigate the irregularities and frauds 
therein alleged to have occurred in the city and State of New York affecting the recent elec¬ 
tion for representatives to Congress and electors for President and Vice-President, and report 
thereon to this house; and that the said committee may bold sessions in the State of New 
York and elsewhere by a quorum or by sub-committees of such number as the committee 
shall delegate; and that they have power to send for persons and papers, to administer 
oaths to witnesses, and to employ a clerk and messenger, with such stenographic assistance 
as they shall find necessary. 

Mr. Wood. I object to the introduction of the resolution. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. I move to suspend the rules, that the resolution may be intro¬ 
duced and agreed to at this time. 

Mr. Wood. If the gentleman from Ohio will give us an opportunity to have a few words 
of discussion upon this resolution I will withdraw all objection so far as I am concerned. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. I insist on my motion. 

Mr. Farnsworth. I would inquire of the gentleman from Ohio whether the election 
referred to is not now being investigated under the authority of the people of New York? 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. A respectable portion of the people of New York have sent 
here a memorial asking the adoption of this resolution. If the gentleman will examine the 
memorial he will find in it abundant evidence that it is presented in good faith. 

The Speaker. The motion to suspend the rules is not debatable except by unanimous 
consent. 

Mr. Ciianler. I object to debate. 

Mr. Brooks. Does the memorial of the Union League Club accompany this resolution? 

The Speaker. It does. 

Mr. Brooks. Let us hear it read. 

Mr. Washburne, of Illinois. I should like to have it read. Let it be read by unanimous 
consent. 

The Speaker. In order that the memorial may be read the gentleman from Ohio must 
first waive his motion to suspend the rules. The gentleman from New York has the right 
under the rule to have this memorial read, but the motion to suspend the rules covers that 
and all other rules. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. I do not object to the reading of the memorial, and I will 
waive the motion to suspend the rules for the present so that the memorial may be read, 
provided that at the conclusion of the reading the motion can be resumed. 

Mr. Brooks. What I wish to suggest to the gentleman from Ohio is this : that when a 
partisan bod} T makes an ex parte representation it is but fair that the representatives of the 
city and State of New York upon this floor should have an opportunity to reply to this 
memorial. I do not think there should be any objection to that. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. The reading of the memorial was called for by gentlemen on 
the other side of the house. If this investigation be had there will be abundant opportunity 
afforded to gentlemen for reply to this memorial. Both sides of the question can be exam¬ 
ined into. 

Mr. Brooks. What I wish to suggest further is, that the Union League of New York city 
contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to carry the States of Ohio and Indiana. I 
would like to know whether the whole country is to be investigated, and whether we are to 
know the amount of money given by the Union League of New York to carry Ohio and 
Indiana. 

Mr. Benjamin. I object to the reading of the memorial. 

Mr. Washburne, of Illinois. I should like to have the gentleman from New York tell 
us what has become of Helmbold’s subscription. 

Mr. Robinson. I rise to a parliamentary question. I ask, if it be in order, for a divis¬ 
ion of the resolution. The last resolution provides for one man to have the run of the hotels, 
subjecting the government to heavy expenses. 




158 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


The Speaker. The motion to suspend the rules suspends that rule with all others. 
Under the rule the gentleman can ask for a division of the resolution, but if two-thirds vote 
to suspend the rules that rule is suspended with all others. 

Mr. Randall. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Washburne] at the last session pro¬ 
posed that none of these special committees should be allowed to run the government into 
debt. This resolution does the very thing he then protested against. 

The Speaker. If that resolution had been adopted a two-thirds vote would suspend that 
with all other rules. 

Mr. Randall. Then, this committee can run the government into any amount of indebt¬ 
edness. 

Mr. Robinsion They are all doing it now. 

The House divided on the motion to suspend the rules; and there were—ayes 104, noes 42. 

Mr. Schenck. There seems to be a good many gentlemen opposed to this resolution, and 
I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The question was taken ; and it was decided in the affirmative—yeas 134, nays 35, not 
voting 52 ; as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Allison, Ames, Arnell, James M. Ashley, Bailey, Baker. Baldwin, Banks, Beaman, Beatty, 
Benjamin, Benton, Bingham, Blair, Boutwell, Bowen, Boyden, Bromwell, Brooks, Broomall, Bnckley, Roderick 
R. Butler, Callis, Chauler, Churchill, Sidney Clarke, Clift, Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Corley, Covode, Dawes, 
Deweese, Dickey, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Eckley, Edwards, Eggleston, Ela, Eliot, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, 
Garfield, Goss, Gove, Graveley, Griswold, Haughey, Hawkins, Higby, Hooper, Hopkins, Chester D. Hubbard, 
Hunter, Jenckes, Alexander H. Jones, Judd, Julian, Kelley, Kellogg, Kelsey, Ketcham, Kitchen, Koontz, 
Lash, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Lincoln, Loan, Lynch, Mallory, Marvin, Maynard, McCarthy, 
McKee, Mercur, Miller, Moore, Moorhead, Morrell, Morrissey, Mullins, Myers, Newsham, Norris, O’Neill, 
Orth, Paine,. Perham, Peters, Pettis, Pike, Pile, Plants, Poland, Polsley, Price, Prince, Raum, Robertson, 
Schenck, Scofield, Shanks, Spalding, Starkweather, Stevens, Stewart, Stokes, Stover, Taylor, Thomas, Trow¬ 
bridge, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Van Wyck, Vidal, Ward, Cadwalader C. Washburn, 
Elihu B. Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Wliittemore, William Williams, 
James F. Wilson, John T. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, and Woodbridge—134. 

Nays —Messrs. Adams, Archer, Axtell, Beck, Boyer, Burr, Cary, Eldridge, Getz, Glossbrenuer, Golladay, 
Grover, Holman, Hotchldss, Humphrey, Thomas L. Jones, Kerr, Marshall, McCormick, McCullough, Mun- 
gen, Niblack, Phelps, Pruyn, Randall, Robinson, Sitgreaves, Stone, Taber, Tift, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van 
Trump, Wood, Woodward, and Young—35 

Not Voting. —Messrs. Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, Barnes, Barnum, Blackburn, Blaine, Boles, Buckland, 
Benjamin F. Butler, Cake, Reader W. Clarke, Cornell, Cullom, Delano, Dockery, Dodge, Farnsworth, Fox, 
French, Haight, Halsey, Hamilton, Harding, Heaton, Hill, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard:, Hul- 
burd, Ingersoll, Johnson, Knott, Laflin, Logan, Loughridge, Newcomb, Nicholson, Nunn, Pierce, Pomeroy, 
Roots, Ross, Sawyer, Selye, Sliellabarger, Smith, Sypher, Taffe, John Trimble, Van Auken, Robert T. Van 
Horn, Thomas Williams, and Windorn—52. 

So (two-thirds voting in favor thereof) the rules were suspended, and the resolution was 
agn ed to. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio, moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was 
adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

1 he latter motion was agreed to. 

The following is the official copy of the resolution and appointment ot 
the committee: 


In the House of Representatives of the United States, 

December 14, 1868, 


On motion of Mr. Lawrence of Ohio, 

Resolved , That the memorial from the Union League club of New York be printed, and 
that a select committee of seven be appointed to investigate the irregularities and frauds 
therein alleged to have occured in the city and State of New York affecting the recent elec¬ 
tion for representatives to Congress and electors for President and Vice-President, and re¬ 
port thereon to this house, and that the said committee may hold sessions in the State of 
New York and elsewhere by a quorum or by sub-committee of such members as the com¬ 
mittee shall delegate, and that they have power to send for persons and papers, to adminis¬ 
ter oaths to witnesses, and to employ a clerk and messenger, with such stenographic assis 
tance as they shall find necessary. 

The Speaker appointed the following members as such committee : 

William Lawrence, of Ohio ; Henry L. Dawes, of Massachusetts : Austin Blair, of Michi¬ 
gan; Oliver J. Dickey, of Pennsylvania ; Benjamin F. Hopkins, of Wisconsin; Samuel S. 
Marshall, 1 of Illinois ; Richard D. Hubbard, of Connecticut. 

Attest: EDWARD McPHERSON, Clerk. 


Washington, I). G., December 18, 1868. 

The committee met pursuant to call of the chairman, Mr. William 
Lawrence, of Ohio, at 10 o’clock a. m., in the room of the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives. 


1 Messrs. Marshall and Hubbard declining to serve, the Speaker appointed in their place M. C. Kerr, of 
Indiana, and Lewis W. Ross, of Illinois. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


159 


There were present: The Chairman; Mr. Dawes, of Massachusetts; 
Mr. Blair, of Michigan; Mr. Dickey, of Pennsylvania; Mr. Hopkins, of 
Wisconsin ; Mr. M. C. Kerr, of Indiana; and Mr. L. W. Eoss, of Illinois. 

On motion, it was 

Ordered , That this committee proceed to New York city this evening 
at 8.40 p. in., there to enter upon the discharge of its duties. 

9 New York, December 19, 1868. 

The committee met at 10 o’clock a. m., this day at the Astor House. 
All the members present. 

On motion, it was 

Ordered , That this committee proceed to the United States circuit 
court building, No. 41 Chambers street, in this city, and there examine 
the rooms tendered it by United States Marshal Murray for the use of 
its sessions. 


10.30 o’clock a. m., same day. 

The committee met in the grand-jury room in the United States circuit 
court building, No. 41 Chambers street. All present. 

On motion, it was 

Ordered , Tliaj: this committee accept the rooms in the United States 
circuit court building, tendered by Marshal Murray, for the purpose of 
holding therein its sessions. 

Adjourned to meet at the Astor House, in this city, at 6 o’clock this 
evening. 

6 o’clock, p. m., same day. 

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at the Astor House. 
All the members present. 

Mr. Eoss moved that the question of the employment of a clerk to the 
committee be postponed for future decision. Mr. Dickey moved as 
an amendment that the chairman of this committee be authorized to 
employ a clerk for the committee, which amendment being accepted by 
Mr. Eoss was adopted. 

On motion of Mr. Dawes, it was 

Ordered , That counsel shall not be admitted to appear before this 
committee. 

On motion, it was 

Ordered , That the sessions of this committee shall begin at 10 o’clock 
a. m. each day until otherwise ordered. 

On motion of Mr. Eoss, it was 

Ordered , That in taking testimony this committee will be governed by 
the general principles of law applicable injudicial proceedings. 

On motion of Mr. Dawes, it was 

Ordered , That the proceedings of this committee shall not be made 
public until otherwise directed. 

Adjourned to 10 o’clock a. m. on Monday next. 

New York, December 21, 1868. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment in the United States 
Circuit court room, No. 41 Chambers street, in this city. All the members 
present. 

William Hayes one of the assistants to the stenographer of the 
House of Eepresentatives, selected as the stenographer of the committee 
appeared and was duly sworn. 

The following witnesses were examined: Eobert Murray, Samuel 


160 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


G. Courtney, William T. Simms, Henry Butts, Samuel Reynolds, 
Logan McDonald, Charles W. Burton. 

Adjourned at 4.30 o’clock p. m. to meet to-morrow at 10 o’clock a. m. 
at the same place. 

New York, December 22, 1868. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members pres¬ 
ent. 

John I. Davenport of New York, selected as the clerk, appeardtt. 

The following witnesses were examined: Edward Mitchell, Albert 
Bogart, George G. Hewitt, George P. Barrett, Henry Beeny, John H. 
Springer, Gabriel A. Arnoux, William W. Young, Walter Shirley, John 
McArthur, jr., Charles C. Reed, Thomas Surridge, R. H. Daly, Theodore 
Block, Robert Murray, (re-called,) Henry Kruger, John Ey. 

At 4.30 o’clock p. m. the committee adjourned to meet at the same 
place to-morrow at 10 o’clock a. m. 

New York, December 23,1868. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members pres¬ 
ent. 

The following witnesses were examined: Charles Barnegat, Andrew 
B. Liegner, Michael Kerwin, William J. McMurray, Daniel Sullivan, 
Patrick Burke, Dougal Stewart, Joseph A. Miller, Charles Fox, Charles 

H. Siep, Thomas Gould, Melchoir Heimburch, Matthias Wolf, Timothy 
Hurrelle, Patrick McLaughlin, Emanuel S. Goldstein, Porter G. Sherman, 
John Osborne, Charles H. Siep, (re called,) Patrick T. Eeeny, Peter Pohl. 

At 4.30 o’clock p. m. adjourned to meet to morrow at same place at 
10 o’clock a. m. 

New York, December 24, 1868. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: The Chairman, Messrs. Blair, Dickey, Hopkins, Kerr, and 
Ross. 

The following witnesses were examined: Maximilian Boeck, Charles 
E. Loew, M. R. Leverson, John T. Hoffman, Samuel J. Glassey, John A. 
Foster. 

At 4 o’clock, p. m., adjourned to meet on Saturday next, December 26, 
at 10 o’clock, a. m., at the office of Charles E. LoeAV, esq., county clerk 
of the county of New York. 

New York, December 26, 1868. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment at 10 o’clock, a. m., at 
the office of Charles E. Loew, esq., clerk of the county of New York. 

Present: The Chairman, Messrs. Blair, Hopkins, Kerr, and Ross. 

The examination of Mr. Charles E. Loew, county clerk, was resumed, 
and a cursory examination of some of the records of the supreme court of 
the State of New York pertaining to naturalization matters, in said 
court in the month of October, 1868, had. 

On motion of Mr. Blair, seconded by Mr. Hopkins, it was, 

Ordered , That the chairman of this committe be, and he hereby is, 
authorized to cause the records and papers in the possession of the 
county clerk of New York, referring to naturalization in the supreme 
court, to be examined, and a list to be made of the name of each person 
so naturalized, his age and residence, and the name and place of resi¬ 
dence of the witnesses, and the day of the month on which such persons 
were naturalized during the month of October. 

By direction of the chairman, and with the approval of the committee, 
the clerk served upon Mr. Loew an attested copy of the above order. 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


161 


At 11.30, a. m., the committee adjourned to resume its session at once 
in the grand jury room of the United States circuit court building, No. 
41 Chambers street, New York city. 

11.35, A. M., SAME DAY. 

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, in the grand jury room 
of the United States circuit court building, No. 41 Chambers street, New 
York city. 

Present: The Chairman, Messrs. Blair, Hopkins, Kerr and Boss. 

The following witnesses were examined: Robert G. Adams, James M. 
Sweeney, Anson Willis, Samuel S. Urmy, Timothy Lynch, David Crowley. 

The committee adjourned, to meet in the United States court-room on 
Monday morning at 10 o’clock a. m. 


New York, December 28, 1808. 

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, in the United States 
circuit court room. 

Present: The Chairman, Messrs. Blair, Hopkins, Kerr, and Ross. 

The further examination of Chas. E. Loew, clerk of the county of New 
York, was resumed. At its close the following witnesses were examined: 
John Jay, George Bliss, jr., Samuel A. Roberts, Wm. D. Sloan, Owen E. 
Westlake, Henry J. Chapman, Richard G. Hunt, Benj. Van Buren, 
Stephen M. Crandall, Michael Quinlan, Nathaniel Jarvis, jr. 

The chairman laid before the committee the following communication 
addressed by him to James M. Sweeny, clerk of the superior court for 
the county of New York: 

New York, December 28,1868. 


Sir: You will please permit such persons as shall be selected by S. J. Glassey and John 
I. Davenport, esqs., both of whom are attorneys and counsellors at law in this city, and the 
latter the clerk of this committee, to examine and make a list of the names and residences of 
persons naturalized, their age, and the names and residences of their witnesses as contained 
in your office, during the months of August, September, and October. These clerks, selected 
as above mentioned, are to be under the instructions of the gentlemen named ; but all inves¬ 
tigation shall be prosecuted in your presence, or that of any deputy whom you may appoint, 
if you so desire. 

Respectfully yours, 

WM. LAWRENCE, 

Chairman Congressional Committee on Election Frauds. 

James M. Sweeny, Esq., 

Clerk of the Superior Court of New York. 

At 4.30 p. m. adjourned, to meet at the same place to-morrow, at 10 
o’clock a. m. 


New York, December 29, 1868. 
The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: The Chairman, Messrs. Dickey, Hopkins, Kerr, and Ross. 
The following witnesses were examined: Patrick Duffy, James E. 
Clifford, John Robertson, T. J. Gilmore, Andrew J. Bross, David Crow¬ 
ley, R. W. McAlpine, Wm. Joralemon, Chas. E. Wilbour, Wm. H. 
Hendrick, Hugh Ward, John Donnelly, Solomon Seixas, James J. 
Brophy, Richard Day, Hugh F. Dolan, Owen E. Westlake, (recalled,) 
David Crowley, (recalled,) John A. Foster, (recalled,) James F. Hall, 
Samuel J. Glassey, (recalled,) W. H. Springstein, Henry Woltman, 
Joseph Reinhart, Alex. Ostrander. 

At 4.20 o’clock p. m. adjourned, to meet at same place to morrow, at 
10 o’clock a. m. 


New York, December 30, 18G8. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: The Chairman, Messrs. Dickey, Hopkins, Kerr, and Ross. 
The following witnesses were examined: Clarence N. Teller, William 
H. Rep. Com. 31-11 



162 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


H. Bridgeman, Joseph E. Paine, Butler H. Bixby, William 0. Barrett, 
John 13. Perrine, James J. Neelis, John McMahon, William M. Tweed, 
Abraham DeVoursney, John J. Mulligan, Morris Livingston, Thomas 
Flynn, Charles E. Loew, (recalled,) T. J. Gilmore, (recalled,) Samuel J. 
Tilden, Lorenzo Carey, A. Oakey Hall, James Moran. 

At 5.20 p. in., adjourned to meet at the same place at 10 o’clock a. m., 
to-morrow. 

New York, December 31, 1868. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: The Chairman, Messrs. Hickey, Hopkins, Kerr, and Boss. 

The chairman laid before the committee the following communication 
addressed by him to Charles E. Loew, clerk of the county of New York: 

New York, December 31, 1868. 

Sir: I have the honor to inform you that I have selected S. J. Glassey, esq., General 
John A. Foster, and John I. Davenport, esq., all of whom are attorneys and counsellors at 
law in this city, and the latter the clerk of this committee, as the persons under whose 
charge and superintendence the work of making the lists required by this committee will be 
carried on. Of course the work done by the clerks under the superintendence of the gen¬ 
tlemen above named will be performed under the eye of yourself or such deputies as you may 
appoint. 

Respectfully yours, 

WILLIAM LAWRENCE. Chairman Committee. 

Charles E. Loew, Esq., County Clerk , New York. 

The following witnesses were examined: Joseph E. Paine, (recalled,) 
S. C. Hawley, Martin B. Austin, Patrick H. Keenan, Hugh F. Dolan, 
(recalled,) Mathew O. Hallenbeck, Lewis C. Phillips, Hugh F. Dolan, 
(recalled,) John Dunn. 

At 5.10 o’clock p. m., the committee adjourned to meet on Saturday 
morning January 2, 1869, in the grand jury room in the United States 
circuit court building, at 10 o’clock a, m. 

New York, January 2, 1869. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: The Chairman, and Messrs. Kerr and Boss. 

By mutual consent the examination of witnesses was proceeded with. 

The first witness called was Moses D. Gale. During the progress of 
his examination Messrs. Dickey and Hopkins appeared, when the follow¬ 
ing additional witnesses were examined : David Crowley, Wm. H. Green, 
Joseph Meeks, A. Oakey Hall, (recalled.) 

The chairman moved that the following order be made: 

Ordered: That Mr. Dickey and Mr. Boss be, and hereby are, consti¬ 
tuted a sub committee of this committee, having the same power with 
this committee to sit elsewhere than in the city of New York. 

That Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Hopkins, and Mr. Kerr be, and hereby are, 
constituted a sub-committee of this committee, having the same power 
with this committee to sit in the city of New York. 

Mr. Boss moved as an amendment that the consideration of this sub¬ 
ject be postponed until Monday next, at 11 a. m. A vote being taken, 
the chairman declared the amendment lost. The question being then 
on the original motion, a vote was taken, and it was declared lost. 

Mr. Kerr then moved that for the present this committee defer the 
making of a sub-committee. 

The ayes and nays being called for, the following was the vote: Ayes_ 

Mr. Dickey, Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Kerr, and Mr. Boss. Nay—Mr. Lawrence. 

Mr. Dickey then moved that the chairman of this committee be, and 
hereby is, directed to transmit the testimony taken by it to Washington 
in such order as he may deem best, for the purpose of having it printed. 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


163 


By unanimous vote it was so ordered. 

At 4.30 p. m. the committee adjourned to meet on Monday, January 4, 
at the same place, at 10 o’clock a. m. 

Hew York, January 4, 1869. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: The Chairman and Mr. Kerr. 

By mutual consent the examination of Henry Donovan was proceeded 
with, and during said examination Messrs. Dickey, Hopkins, and Boss 
entered. 

The following witnesses were subsequently examined: John B. Mc¬ 
Kean, James Irving, James Coit, Nathaniel B. Mills, Isaac Heman, 
James O’Brien, E. H. Kent, Henry Vandervoort, Dennis Shea, Edwin 
B. Heath, John M. Lawrence, Arthur McKenna. 

At 5 o’clock p. m. the committee adjourned to meet to-morrow, at the 
same place, at 10 o’clock a. m. 

Hew York, January 5, 1869. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: The Chairman, and Messrs. Dawes, Dickey, Hopkins, and Boss. 

The examination of the following witnesses was proceeded with: 
Colonel Henry Beeny, (recalled,) Patrick Mack, Louis Jonassohn, John 
Lee, John Bogers, David Welsh, Patrick Fitzgerald, and Charles E. 
Wilbour. 

During the examination of Mr. Wilbour, Mr. Dawes questioned him in 
.reference to the names of the stockholders of the Hew York Printing 
Company. Mr. Wilbour declined to answer the question. Mr. Dawes 
appealed to the chairman to'compel the witness to answer. The chair¬ 
man thereupon repeated the question and directed the witness to answer.. 
Mr. Wilbour, still declining, desired to know if the committee meant to 
compel him to answer that question. The chairman submitted the mat¬ 
ter to the committee: u Shall the witness be compelled to answer the 
question put him by Mr. Dawes,” and desired a vote thereon. Mr. Boss 
called for the ayes and nays. The vote being then taken, resulted as fol¬ 
lows: Yeas—The Chairman, Messrs. Dawes, Dickey, and Hopkins.. 
Hay—Mr. Boss. The question being then repeated by Mr. Dawes, the 
witness desired until 1 o’clock to-morrow to reflect upon the matter and 
consult his rights in the premises. The committee unanimously con¬ 
sented thereto. The examination of the following witnesses was then 
proceeded with: William Lawlor, Thomas, Smith, John Carberry, Ed¬ 
ward J. Shandley, D. E. Bennett, and Michael Costello. 

On motion of the chairman it was unanimously ordered that Mr. Law¬ 
rence, Mr. Hopkins, and Mr. Boss, or a majority of them, be, and hereby 
are, constituted a sub-committee of this committee, having the same 
power with this committee to sit in the city of Hew York. By mutual 
agreement of the members it was understood and consented to that at 
any time when the committee or any sub-committee thereof should for a 
time consist of but two members present, the vote of the republican 
member thereof should, in consequence of the large majority of that 
party in the house and upon the committee, count as two votes against 
the single vote of the democratic member. 

On further motion of the chairman it was unanimously ordered that 
Mr.-Dickey and Mr. Boss be, and hereby are, constituted a sub-corn mit- 
tee of this committee, having the same powder with this committee to 
hold sessions in the State of Hew York outside of the city of Hew York,, 
on and after Monday, January 11th. 


164 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


The chairman laid before the committee a telegram from the Speaker 
of the House in reference to the printing of the evidence taken by the 
committee. The chairman was unanimously instructed to reply thereto 
and say that the testimony forwarded by him to Washington was to be 
printed, but, until otherwise ordered, for the use solely of the members of 
the committee. 

At 5.15 the committee adjourned to meet to-morrow at the same place 
at 10 o’clock a. m. 


New York, January 6, 18G9. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: The Chairman and Mr. Kerr. 

By mutual consent the examination of the following witnesses was 
proceeded with : August Thakphous, William Haviland, James O’Brien, 
(recalled,) [during examination of Mr. O’Brien Mr. Hopkins, a member 
of the committee, appeared,] James A. Colvin, Sylvester E. Nolan, [during 
examination of Mr. Nolan Mr. Hickey and Mr. Boss, of the committee, 
entered,] W. W. Woodward, John Cummings, and Morgan Jones. 

An objection being made to certain statements of Mr. Jones respect¬ 
ing one Costello, a former witness, and a motion being made by Mr. 
Hopkins to strike from the record such statements, and a vote demanded, 
Mr. Kerr called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and found as 
follows: Yeas—The Chairman, Mr. Hickey, and Mr. Hopkins. Nays, Mr. 
Kerr, and Mr. Boss. 

The examination of witnesses was resumed, and the following persons 
^called and examined: Thomas By an, George Hopcroft, William J. Lou- 9 
trell, M. T. Brennan, George H. Hoffman, Samuel B. Garvin, Charles 
E. Wilbour, Thomas Potter, George Harris, Henry E. Sweetser, James 
Melville, Joseph Benson, Charles Grant, John P. Thurston, William Ho¬ 
rans. At the close of the re-direct examination of this witness (William 
Horans) he was informed that he was required to remain in the witness- 
room, or the hall entering thereto, until otherwise directed, as his presence 
for further examination would be required. The next witness called was 
George Mabee. After the close of Mr. Mabee’s examination William 
Horans was recalled and further examined, and directed to report to-mor¬ 
row, and remain in attendance in the witness-room, or hall, until such 
time as his presence should again be required before the committee. 

The following witnesses were then examined: William H. Bogert, 
George Mabee, (recalled,) T. W. Greig, Bartholomew Cronin, Jules Ma¬ 
lay, and John Gilmore. 

The following communication was ordered to be sent to the clerk of 
Westchester county: 


United States Court Building, No. 41 Chambers Street, 

New York , January 6, 1869. 

Sir : The congressional committee appointed to examine into alleged frauds committed at 
the late election in the State of New York, desire from you a statement, made from the records 
of your office, of the number of persons naturalized in the county of Westchester in the year 
1856, and every year since. This statement they require to be made in tabular form, and for 
the year 1868, to show the number on each day in the month of October. They wish a clerk 
sent here on Saturday with this list, who will be able to swear to its accuracy. 

Respectfully yours, 

WILLIAM LAWRENCE, 

Chairman Committee. 


J. Malcom Smith, Esq., 

County Clerk Westchester County , N. Y. 


A letter similar throughout was also sent to the clerk of the county of 
Kings, State of New York. 

At 5.20 o’clock p. m. the committee adjourned to meet at the same 
place at 10 o’clock a. m. to-morrow. 


ELECTION FRAUDS'IN NEW YORK. 


165 


New York, January 7, 18G9. 
The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: The Chairman; Messrs. Hopkins, Kerr, and Ross. 

The following witnesses were examined: Henry Lyle, John H. White, 
Charles Reilly, Robert Utley, Peter Cook, George Johnson, George Hill, 
Clark Bell, James Nichols, James Emmot, and William Wood. 

The following communication was addressed to Charles E. Loew, esq., 
county clerk: 


U. S. Circuit Court Building, No. 41 Chambers Street, 

New York , January 7, 1869. 

Dear Sir: The congressional committee desires you should furnish it this day with a 
certified copy of the appointment of your deputyylerk. 

Respectfully yours, 

WM. LAWRENCE, 
Chairman Committee. 

CHAS. E. Loew, Esq., County Clerk. 


At 5 o’clock p. m. the committee adjourned to meet to-morrow at same 
place at 10 o’clock a. m. 

New York, January 8 , 1809. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: The chairman, Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Kerr, and Mr. Ross. 

The following witnesses Avere examined: Joseph Dumble, Thomas II. 
York, Edwin M. Plumb, Austin V. Pettit, George B. Gifford, Henry 
Darling, John H. McCunn, (recalled,) James A. Lucas^ George Melvilie, 
, James M. Clark, James Green, James O’Brien, (recalled,) Edward Sand- 
ford. 

During the examination of Sandford the proceedings of the com¬ 
mittee were interrupted by the arrest of several witnesses, as reported 
to the committee by Mr. Le Barnes, the sergeant-at-arms, as follows: 

Mr. Chairman : I have a report to make upon which I desire the instructions of the com¬ 
mittee. Several of the witnesses summoned before this committee, including some who have 
been examined and were directed to remain for further examination, and others who have 
not yet been called, have just been arrested in the hall of this building by the sheriff of this 
county and his deputies. I have reason to believe that these arrests were made without 
warrant or other lawful authority, and for some ulterior purpose connected with this inves¬ 
tigation. I desire to be informed if I have any power, or this committee has any power, to 
protect from arrest the witnesses summoned before it. 

Mr. Kerr stated that the arrests were made at his instance, and that 
lie would take the responsibility of the act. The following witnesses 
were then examined pending the reappearance of Sheriff O’Brien, who 
was sent for:* William Wilson, Louis A. Jonassohn, Adam Gillespie, 
Edward H. Burger. 

James O’Brien being in attendance was recalled and examined as to 
the circumstances attending the arrest of witnesses, as reported by the 
sergeant-at-arms. 

At the close of his examination, the sergeant-at-arms again called 
the attention of the committee to an interference by the deputies of this 
officer, as follows: 

Mr. Le Barnes. Mr. Chairman : I have to report that I find three of the deputies of 
the sheriff of this county stationed at the door of this room. I respectfully ask to be in¬ 
formed if these officers are so stationed by the direction of this committee. And I desire 
further to state that I have already experienced great difficulty in retaining the witnesses 
summoned before this committee, on account of the intimidation exercised by the presence in 
this building of sheriff’s officers and other persons who watch, follow, attempt to manipu¬ 
late, and, in some instances, maltreat them. 

The committee ordered the sergeant-at-arms to bring before it the 
three deputy sheriffs complained of, w r hieh being done, the committee, 
through the chairman, directed them to leave the vicinity of the com¬ 
mittee room and the building. The following additional witnesses were 


166 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


then examined: Eobert Murray, Samuel S. Acker, Thomas Kyan, Charles 

A. Grant, James Gorman, George Merritt, Geo. W. Mabee. 

At 5.25 o’clock p. m. the committee adjourned to meet to-morrow at 
same place at 10 o’clock a. m. 

New York, January 9, 18G9. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: The Chairman, Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Kerr and Mr. Eoss. 

The clerk of the committee, who to this date, to facilitate matters 
before the committee, had permitted some three or four messengers and 
clerks—very kindly placed at his disposal by the sub committee of the 
Union League Club, on whose memorial the investigation had been 
ordered—to serve nearly all of the subpoenas for witnesses required by 
the minority, as well as render them other service, having informed the 
sergeant-at arms that, in consequence of what had taken place yester¬ 
day, in the illegal and unwarrantable arrest, at the instance of Mr. Kerr, 
of witnesses subpoenaed by the majority, he should for the future refuse 
to permit any one connected with or subject to his orders to serve any 
process, or perform any errand or service of any kind for the minority of 
the committee, Mr. LeBarnes, the sergeant-at-arms, informed the com¬ 
mittee of his inability to serve, with anything like the desired haste, the 
subpoenas called for by the minority, as he was alone, and, of course, 
during the day required to be in immediate attendance upon the com¬ 
mittee. 

Mr. Kerr thereupon asked leave, which was unanimously given, to 
have the assistance of such persons as should be tendered the minority 
by its political friends. 

The following witnesses were examined: John E. McGowan, Eobert 
Murray, (recalled,) Thomas Sullivan, John Donahoe, David Hogan, Geo. 

B. Gifford, (recalled,) John H. White, (recalled,) C. Pullman, J. Malcolm 
Smith, Florence Scannell, Michael Brady, and Eobert Murray, (recalled.) 

At the close of Marshal Murray’s examination Mr. Kerr moved that 
the chairman of this committee, on behalf of the committee, request 
Marshal Murray to cause the police force now in this building, number¬ 
ing 24, to be at once withdrawal from it. 

Mr. Hopkins moved as a substitute: That if the police force now 
present remain here to-day the future sessions of this committee shall be 
held at such place as the committee shall designate. 

Mr. Eoss objected to the substitute on the ground that it was not ger- 
main. Objection overruled. 

The ayes and nays were then called for by Mr. Eoss on the adoption 
of the substitute, and a vote being taken resulted as follows: Yeas—The 
Chairman and Mr. Hopkins. Kays—Mr. Kerr and Mr. Eoss. 

By mutual consent the votes of the republican members were counted 
as a majority, and the substitute declared carried. 

The following witnesses were then examined: J. W. LeBarnes, Thos. 
A. McGlade, John Jones, Eobert Murray, (recalled,) J. W. LeBarnes, 
(recalled,) Geo. Mabee, Geo. Johnson, John A. Kennedy, Florence Scan¬ 
nell, Edward Sanford, Philip Koob, General John A. Foster. 

At 5.30 p. m. the committee adjourned to meet at the same place on 
Monday, January 11, at 10 o’clock a. m. 

New York, January 11, 1869. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: The Chairman and Mr. Eoss. 

Mr. Eoss moved that the sessions of this committee be held for the 
future at the Fifth Avenue Hotel. 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


167 


Tlie chairman moved as a substitute: That Mr. LeBarnes, the mes¬ 
senger of this committee, and sergeant-at-arms, be directed to call to his 
aid such assistance as may be necessary to preserve order and protect 
witnesses, and that the sessions of this committee be continued at this 
room (United States grand jury room) until otherwise ordered. 

The question being upon the adoption of the substitute, the chairman 
voted, aye; Mr. Ross, no. Under the agreement of January 5, the sub¬ 
stitute was declared to be carried, and to be an order of the committee. 

The following communications from the messenger and sergeant-at-arms 
of the committee were then presented and ordered to go upon the journal: 

United States Court-House, 

New York , January 11, 1869. 

Sir: I have the honor to report that a man named Ward, an officer of Judge McCunn’s 
court, presented himself to-day as a substitute for Sandford, a messenger, hitherto authorized 
by me to act as an assistant. 

Not desiring to have any officer attached to any of the courts of this city, nor any sheriff’s 
deputy, nor other official of this city as an assistant to me in the discharge of my duties, I 
have notified Ward that I had no use for him, and that he could retire. . I also informed 
Mr. McGowan, the associate of Sandford, that if he wanted any assistance in the discharge 
of the duties required of him, in the absence of Sandford, he might present to me any friend 
of his, who was not an officer, nor attached to any court of this city, nor to the sheriff’s 
office, and I would authorize him to act. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

J. W. LeBARNES, 
Messenger to Committee. 

Hon. Wm. Lawrence, 

Chairman Committee on Election Frauds. 


The action of Mr. Le Barnes, as stated in his report, was approved. 

United States Court-House, 

New York , January 11,1869. 

Sir : I have to report that a witness by the name of Wm. Dorans, who was duly sum¬ 
moned and has been examined before this committee, and directed by it to remain in attend¬ 
ance for further examination, was arrested in the hall of this building on Saturday last, by 
an officer named Moore, a deputy sheriff under Sheriff O’Brien. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

J. W. LeBARNES, 

Messenger to Committee. 

Hon. Wm. Lawrence, 

Chairman Committee on Election Frauds. 


The above report of Mr. LeBarnes being read, the committee directed 
that a summons issue, returnable forthwith, requiring Deputy Sheriff 
Moore to appear before the committee as a witness. 

The following witnesses were then examined: Louis Campbell, Wm. 
H. Bogart, (recalled,) Hiram B. Ferguson, Robert Murray, (recalled,) 
David Hogan, James Gorrey, John Norton, Michael Edwards, James 
Straume, James Ward, Nathaniel Jarvis, jr., (recalled,) John Keating, 
Howard T. Marston, (recalled,) Abraham Yoorhees, John Wood, John 
Gregory, Lawrence Farrell, Samuel J. Glassey, Gen. John A. Foster, 
John I. Davenport, Wm. H. Cook, Francis Murray, and John McCabe. 

The sergeant-at-arms, at 5.15, reported that in accordance with the 
instructions of the committee he had subpoenaed Deputy Sheriff Moore, 
in person, shortly before 12 o’clock; but that at this hour he had failed 
and refused to appear before the committee. 

On motion of Mr. Ross the committee adjourned until to-morrow, to 
meet at the same place at 10 o’clock a. m. 


New York, January 12,1869. 
The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: The Chairman and Mr. Ross. 

On motion of Mr. Ross, it was ordered that Mr. Dickey, of the 


168 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


sub-committee appointed to take testimony out of tlie city of New York 
be directed to admit to appear before him such counsel as shall be 
designated by the minority of this committee, for the purpose of repre¬ 
senting before him said minority, Mr. Boss, of said sub-committee, desir¬ 
ing to remain in New York. 

The following witnesses were then examined: John Gunn, Joseph 
Gaillard, James Dennis, John H. McCunn, (recalled,) Abraham Voor- 
liees, (recalled,) Wright Banks, John M. Bowel!, Samuel Watson, James 
Smith, Charles Ferguson, John Hughes, and John Kagle. 

Mr. LeBarnes, the messenger and sergeant-at-arms of the committee, 
here made the following written report, which was received and ordered 
to be placed on the journal: 


United States Court-House, Grand Jury Room, 

New York , January 12, 1869. 

Sir: I respectfully report that being recently informed that a party of thieves and pick¬ 
pockets under charge of deputy sheriffs were in the witness room, I asked the persons indi¬ 
cated to me as being deputy sheriffs if they were witnesses, and upon being informed by 
them that they were not I directed them to retire. Finding, also, that the remaining per¬ 
sons had not been summoned before the committee, I gave them the same direction. I would 
also state that, as a matter of convenience in the discharge of my duties as messenger and 
sergeant-at-arms of the committee, and also for the purpose of preventing improper influ¬ 
ences being brought to bear upon the witnesses, I have given directions that no persons be 
permitted to enter the witness room except witnesses summoned before the committee by 
myself or my duly authorized assistants. 

Very respectfully yours, 

J. W. LeBARNES, 


Messenger and sergeant-at-arms to Committee. 

Hon. Wm, Lawrence, 

Chairman Committee on Election Frauds. 


The following witnesses were then examined: Bobert Costello, H. K. 
Murray, John Clark, John Glennon, Jacob Boome, Edward Clark, John 
Horner, M. S. Boberts, Edward Cobb. 

At 5 o’clock the committee adjourned to meet to-morrow at the same 
place at 10 o’clock a. m. 

New York, January 13, 18G9. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: The Chairman and Mr. Boss. 

The following witnesses were examined : Miss Cornelia A. Lyle, John 
Mullaly, Jacob W. Cooper, John Fox, Charles McCarty, Paul" Volmer, 
Peter Loftus, James Allen, Cornelius Doherty, Henry A. Gumbleton, 
John Kennell, Charles H. Bogers, Adam Gillespie, (recalled,) John Heath, 
William B. W. Chambers and William Ward. 

The chairman received a communication from John Jay, esq., presi¬ 
dent of the Union League club of New York, relative to certain matters 
of common notoriety connected with the investigations of the committee, 
which communication, together with his reply, is hereinbelow set forth: 

Union League Club, New York, January 8, 1869. 

Sir: I have this evening been advised that several persons summoned by your authority 
as witnesses to testify before your body were arrested by the sheriff of this city and county 
this afternoon, while attending in the United States court-house, where your committee hold 
their sittings. 

It is also reported me that of the men so arrested some had testified and were expecting 
to be recalled, and that the rest were waiting to testify; that they were arrested without 
warrant and were afterwards released, no charge having been preferred against them. 

Having reason to believe that the facts thus reported are true, I beg leave very respect¬ 
fully to address you upon the subject. * 

It was upon the memorial of the Union League club that your committee was appointed 
to inquire into the matters therein alleged, and we were advised after your arrival in the 
city that you regarded the club in the light of a complainant and looked to them for the 
proofs of their allegations. 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 169 

This position we accepted, with its responsibilities, and, so far as the investigation has 
proceeded, we have more than proven the charges of the memorial. 

Other witnesses than those summoned at our instance have been produced and examined, 
in regard to the repeating frauds, in which they had themselves been engaged, as the 
employes of those by whom the frauds were planned, and it is more than probable that the 
past lives of persons selected for such a purpose have not been blameless. 

But the arrest of any witnesses upon any pretence, by the sheriff and his deputies, is a 
move which we did not anticipate, and in which we cannot acquiesce. No argument can be 
necessary to satisfy your committee that it will be impossible lor us to proceed with the 
proofs, and to furnish witnesses whose evidence may convict of complicity with the fraudu¬ 
lent conspiracy to change the vote of the State persons occupying official positions, if the 
men thus charged are to be allowed, with the connivance of the sheriff and his deputies, 
to avenge themselves upon the spot by arresting the witnesses and dragging them to prison. 

I do not, of course, suppose for a moment that your committee have the slightest idea of 
acquiescing in such an insult to your own body, or to the branch of Congress which you 
represent. I take it for granted that the House of Representatives, on your report of the 
facts, will properly vindicate your dignity and their own, and will punish as such a crime 
should be punished, this daring outrage by a local officer upon the national authority—this 
bold attempt to arrest and render futile a congressional investigation, by overawing, insult¬ 
ing, and maltreating the witnesses. 

But you will readily see, sir, that until such action is had by Congress, and the country 
is advised that in this grave investigation, involving the exposure of a gigantic crime, and 
perhaps the validity of the returns of our State election, the national government will pro¬ 
tect the committee and their witnesses from officious interference, the effect of to-day’s 
arrests may naturally indispose our citizens from volunteering their testimony, however 
important, with the prospect of being dragged from the court to a prison, should their evi¬ 
dence be displeasing to the political friends of Mr. Sheriff O’Brien. 

I beg leave, therefore, very respectfully, and with the view of enabling the club commit¬ 
tee to proceed efficiently with the evidence, to ask from you an assurance, with permission 
to make it public, that the facts of this matter will be reported by your committee, with a 
view to prompt action on the part of the House of Representatives in proceeding against the 
sheriff for contempt in violating the privileges of witnesses summoned by its mandate, and 
attending under its protection; and with the view also to the enactment of a proper law, if 
additional legislation be indeed necessary, to protect all whom you may summon from the 
vengeance of the felons whose frauds may be developed by their evidence. 

Such an assurance will, I believe, enable us to proceed with the proofs as rapidly and 
effectually as we have thus far done, and relieve the witnesses from all anxiety in regard to 
the threats, personal or official, of those whose crimes may be exposed. 

I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JOHN JAY, 

President Union League Club , and member of Special Committee on Election Frauds. 
Hon. William Lawrence, 

Chairman of the Congressional Committee 

to investigate the alleged frauds in the New York election. 

Rooms of tiie Congressional Committee on Alleged Election Frauds 

in New York, No. 41 Chambers street, 

New York , January 13, 1869. 

Dear Sir : Your communication of the 8th inst. was duly’received, and I at once addressed a 
note to Mr. Dawes, a member of this committee then in Washington, calling his attention to the 
facts in your letter contained. I didIRt indicate what action should be taken by the House 
on the subject, as I had no doubt Mr. Dawes would deem it advisable to present the matter 
to the House, which would take such notice thereof as to it should seem right and proper. 
I did,however, take occasion to contradict some of the statements published in the World, 
of Sunday last, especially those purporting to be made by Sheriff O’Brien; and have since 
taken testimony before the committee respecting the arrests made by that officer of persons 
summoned to testify before our committee, which evidence will show the facts more fully 
than they could otherwise be ascertained. 

I have since directed a summons to issue from this committee requiring Deputy Sheriff 
Moore to appear and testify, it having been alleged that he had arrested a witness summoned 
to testify before this committee. This summons our messenger reports as served upon Moore 
in person, but as yet that individual has failed to respond to the process. Having waited 
thus long for him to obey the summons of the committee, I have directed Mr. Davenport, 
our clerk, to forward to the Hon. Henry L. Dawes a copy of the letter I had the honor to 
receive from you, and to bring to Mr. Dawes attention the testimony taken relative to the 
matter. 

Very respectfully yours, WILLIAM LAWRENCE, 

Chairman Committee. 

Hon. John Jay. President Union League Club , N. Y. 

On motion the committee adjourned to meet to-morrow at the same 
place at 10 o’clock, a. m. 


170 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


New York, January 14.1869. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: The Chairman and Mr. Eoss. 

The following witnesses were examined: Marcus C. Stanley, Henry 
E. Sweetzer, (recalled,) John J. Mullen, John H. White, (recalled,) 
John E. Brady, Wm. Ward, (recalled,) John Morton, jr., Meyer J. 
Newmark, M. E. Leverson, (recalled,) Wm. Davidson, John H. McCunn, 
(recalled,) Geo. F. Hallum, Victor Bishop, Terrence Foley, Wm. H 
Bogert, (recalled,) T. P. Tupper, James' Collins, and Edward Hogan. 

By agreement the committee at 5.30 p. m., adjourned to meet on the 
call of the chairman. 

Washington, D. C, January 25, 1869. 

The committee met, pursuant to a call of the chairman, in the ro§m 
of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Eepresentatives, at 10 
o’clock this day. 

Present: The Chairman, Messrs. Blair, Hopkins, Kerr, and Eoss. 

The following witnesses were examined: Christopher Callan, (recalled 5 ) 
Howard T. Marston, (recalled;) John I. Davenport, (recalled;) and Sami. 
J. Glassey, (recalled.) 

The question as to what action should be taken by the committee in 
the cases of Deputy Sheriff Moore, Henry Johnson, and John McClusky, 
guilty of a contempt in refusing to appear before the committee in New 
York, as required by the respective subpoenas, duly served upon each, 
being brought up by the chairman for decision; together with the case 
of Florence Scannell, who refused to answer questions put to him when 
under examination, it was moved and seconded that the chairman be, 
and hereby is, directed to report each of said cases to the House of Eep¬ 
resentatives and ask the order of the House for their arrest. The motion 
being before the committee, Mr. Eoss demaded the yeas and nays, and 
the roll being called, the vote was reported by the clerk, as follows: 
Yeas—The Chairman, Messrs. Blair, and Hopkins. Nays—Messrs. Kerr 
and Eoss. 

The motion was declared to be carried, and the committee adjourned 
to meet at the call of the chairman. 

Washington, D. C., January 27, 1869. 

The committee met, pursuant to the call of the chairman, in the 
library of the House of Eepresentatives, at 3.30 p. m. this day. 

Present: The Chairman and Mr. Eoss. 

By agreement, the examination of Abraham Voorhees (recalled) was 
proceeded with, at the close of which the committee adjourned, subject 
to the call of the chairman. 

Washington, D. C., January 29, 1869. 

The committee met, pursuant to a call of the chairman, in the room 
of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Eepresentatives, at 4.40 p. 
m. this day. 

Present: The Chairman, Messrs. Dawes, Blair, Kerr, and Eoss. 

On motion of the chairman, it was ordered that Messrs. Blair and 
Eoss be, and hereby are, constituted a sub-committee of this committee, 
having the same power with this committee, to hold sessions in the 
counties of New York and Orange, in the State of New York. By 
agreement, the same understanding was had in reference to the vote ol 
Mr. Blair counting as two against the vote of Mr. Eoss as was arrived 
at in New York January 5. 

John McClusky, of New York, was examined as a witness, after which 
the committee adjourned, subject to the call of the chairman. 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


171 


Washington, B. C., February 1 , 1869 . 

The committee, pursuant to a call of tlie chairman, met in the room of 
the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, at 4.30 p. m. 
this day. 

Present: The Chairman, Messrs. Hawes, Hickey, and Kerr. 

The following named witnesses were recalled and examined: Joseph 
Meeks and Adam Gillespie. The committee then adjourned at the call 
of the chairman. 


Washington, H. C., February 3, 1869. 

The committee met, pursuant to a call of the chairman, at 4.30 p. m. 
this day in the room of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
House of Representatives. 

Present: The Chairman and Messrs. Hawes, Hickey, Hopkins, and Kerr. 

The Sergeant-at-arms of the House of Representatives presented him¬ 
self with the witness, Henry Johnson, arrested by him upon the order 
of the House for a contempt in refusing to appear before the committee 
when in New York. 

The examination of Mr. Johnson was proceeded with, and at its close 
the following resolution, offered by Mr. Hawes, was unanimously 
adopted: 

Resolved , That the chairman of this committee be, and hereby is, in¬ 
structed to report to the House of Representatives in the case of the 
witness Henry Johnson, that said Johnson has appeared before this com¬ 
mittee and testified; that there seems to have existed in the mind of 
the witness a misunderstanding, arising from a conversation between 
himself and the officer as to the time and place of meeting; that it does 
not appear that the witness intended to be guilty of any contempt to 
this committee or the House of Representatives, and therefore that he 
be discharged from custody and paid his fees as a witness. 

John B. McKean was then recalled and examined, after which the 
committee adjourned until to-morrow morning (February 4th) at 10 
o’clock a. m. 


Washington, H. C., February , 4, 1869. 

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, in the room of the 
Committee on Public Lands of the House of Representatives. 

Present: The Chairman, Messrs. Hawes, Hickey, Hopkins, and Kerr. 

The following witnesses were recalled and examined : John A. Thomp¬ 
son, E. B. Heath, Florence Scannell, [this witness appeared in the 
custody of the Sergeant-at-arms of the House of Representatives, hav¬ 
ing been arrested by him upon the order of the House for refusing, when 
before the committee in New York, to answer certain questions pro¬ 
pounded to him,] and John I. Bavenport. 

A resolution, given below, was offered by Mr. Hawes relative to the 
witness Florence Scannell, and was adopted by the following vote: 
Yeas—The Chairman, Messrs. Hawes, Hickey, and Hopkins. Nay—Mr. 
Kerr. 

Resolved , That the chairman of this committee be, and hereby is, 
instructed to report to the House of Representatives in the matter of the 
witness Florence Scannell, that said Scannell has again appeared before 
this committee this morning, but has in no sense given any good or sat¬ 
isfactory reasons for his refusal to answer the questions propounded to 
him by this committee, and therefore, in the opinion of this committee, 
said Florence Scannell should be obliged to pay the costs of his arrest, 
and upon such payment be discharged from arrest. 

The committee then adjourned, subject to the call of the chairman. 


172 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


Washington, H. C., February 5, 1869. 

The committee met, pursuant to a call of the chairman, in the cloak¬ 
room of the House of Representatives. 

Present: The Chairman, Messrs. Hawes, Hickey, Hopkins, and Kerr. 

On motion, it was ordered that the chairman have authority to appoint, 
under the resolution of the House of February 1, such additional clerical 
force as he may deem necessary to make, prepare, and complete a per¬ 
fect and accurate list of the names and residences of the applicants for 
naturalization in the supreme and superior courts of -New York city, 
together with the names and residences of the witnesses and the date 
of the applications. The chairman thereupon addressed a note to John 
I. Havenport, clerk of the committee, then in New York city, directing 
him to proceed at once to have the lists required by the above resolution 
made, and, as he was on the spot, to select such persons as he deemed 
most competent to perform the requisite duties, giving preference to 
attorneys and counsellors at law—officers of the courts. 

The committee adjourned, subject to the call of the chairman. 

Washington, H. 0., February 9, 1869. 

The committee met, pursuant to a call of the chairman, in the room of 
the Committee on Indian Affairs of the House of Representatives. 

Present: The Chairman, Messrs. Hawes, Blair, Hopkins, Kerr, and 
Ross. 

Mr. Blair stated to the committee certain facts which had transpired 
before the sub-committee, of which he and Mr. Ross were members, at a 
session held by them at the Astor House in New York, on the 6th of 
February, in connection with a contempt of Charles E. Loew, county 
clerk, of New York, in refusing to bring before the said sub committee, 
in accordance with the terms of a subpoena duces tecum , duly served 
upon him, the applications for naturalization made to the supreme court 
in the first judicial district in New York, for the 21st and 23d days of 
October, 1868, which applications were desired to enable John McClusky 
and Theodore Taylor to select therefrom some fifty which they had pre¬ 
pared in the names of fictitious applicants and witnesses, and upon 
which McClusky obtained from John B. McKean, clerk of Part 1 supreme 
court, an equal number of certificates of naturalization in the names of 
said fictitious applicants and without the presence in court of a single person 
representing either applicant or witness. 

On motion of Mr. Hawes, seconded by Mr. Kerr, it was unanimously 

Resolved , That the chairman of this committee write a letter at once to 
Charles E. Loew, directing him to appear in Washington before this 
committee, and bring with him said applications for the said 21st and 23d 
days of October, 1868. 

The chairman then laid before the committee the bills of the official 
reporter of the House of Representatives for expenses of phonograph- 
ers while in attendance upon the committee and its several sub-commit¬ 
tees. On motion of Air. Kerr, seconded by Mr. Hawes, it was unani¬ 
mously agreed and ordered that the reporters should be paid a per diem 
of six dollars for their expenses, and 10 cents per mile mileage. 

The committee then adjourned subject to the call of the chairman. 

Washington, H. C., February 13, 1869. 

The committee met pursuant to a call of the chairman in the room of 
the Committee on Indian Affairs of the House of Representatives, at 11 
o’clock a. m. All the members present. 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


173 


John I. Davenport was recalled, and put in evidence the correspond¬ 
ence by mail and telegraph between the chairman and Charles E. Loew 
of New York. Howard T. Marston was recalled and examined as to the 
condition of the applications for naturalization in the supreme court at 
the time of his inspection and examination thereof. Mr. Davenport 
was again recalled, after which Mr. Kerr moved that the minority of the 
committee have a clerk allowed them to assist in the preparation of their 
views. Carried unanimously. 

Mr. Kerr moved that the sub-committee of this committee return to 
New York and make the examination there of the applications for natu¬ 
ralization desired, and take such testimony as may be offered and sub¬ 
mitted to it. 

Mr. Dawes offered the following as an amendment: That the chairman 
of this committee write to Mr. Loew that the committee has again had 
under consideration the matter of his refusal to bring before it the 
papers desired, and while it desires no conflict of authority, it deems it 
to be its duty after all that has transpired to require him to appear here 
with the papers on or before Tuesday next, February 16. 

At the request of Messrs. Kerr and Loss, Mr. Dawes subsequently 
withdrew his amendment to the motion of Mr. Kerr until the question 
as to whether any further testimony should be taken in New York 
should be decided, and Mr. Foss offered the following as a substitute for 
the motion of Mr. Kerr: that this committee or a sub-committee thereof 
hold a session in New York city on Tuesday next. A vote being taken 
upon the substitute of Mr. Foss, it was lost. Yeas, 2; nays, 5. 

Mr. Dawes then renewed the motion previously offered by him, 
and given above, and a vote being taken the same was declared to be 
carried. Yeas, 5; nays, 2. 

On motion of Mr. Hopkins the chairman was also instructed, for the 
purpose of avoiding any semblance of irregularity or question of au¬ 
thority, to have Mr. Loew served with another subpoena duces tecum , 
requiring his presence with the papers before the committee in this city. 
The chairman, thereupon, prepared and sent to Mr. Loew by mail the 
following: 


Fortieth Congress, U. S., 
Washington , D. C., February 13, 1869. 

Sir : I am directed by the select committee of this house appointed, to examine into alleged 
frauds committed at the late presidential election in the State of New York, to address you 
this note, and say, that said committee have this day had again under consideration the 
matter of your non-appearance before it with the naturalization applications of the 21st and 
23d days of October last, as required by the subpoena served upon you in New York last Satur¬ 
day, and its subsequent request as made to you by me both by letter aud telegram during 
this week, and that while it desires no conflict of authority should arise, it must and dots 
require and insist that you shall appear before it in this city by or before 12 m. (noon) of 
Tuesday next, February 16, and that you bring icith you the payers aforementioned. 

Respectfully yours, 

WM. LAWRENCE, 

Chairman of Committee. 


Chas. E. Loew, Esq., 

County Clerk , New York. 


The clerk also sent to New York a properly prepared subpoena w T itli 
instructions that the same be served upon Mr. Loew in person. He was 
not found in New York, however, and therefore no service was obtained 
there. 

The chairman presented each member of the committee a copy of his 
report, so far as the same was in type, whereupon the committee, on mo¬ 
tion, adjourned to meet at the call of the chairman. 


174 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


Washington D. 0., February 17, 1869. 

The committee met pursuant to a call of the chair in the room of the 
Committee on Indian Affairs of the House of Representatives, at 10 
o’clock a. m., this day. All the members present. 

Charles E. Loew and Edwin M. Plumb were recalled and examined. 
Mr. Loew was directed to remain in the city and await the action of the 
committee in his case, he having refused to bring before the committee 
the papers required. 

On motion the committee adjourned to to-morrow, February 18,1869, to 
meet in the cloak-room of the House of Representatives, on call of the 
chairman. 


Washington, D. C., February 18, 1869. 

The committee met pursuant to the order of adjournment at 3.30 p. m. 
All the members present but Mr. Ross. John I. Davenport testified as 
to certain despatches sent by the chairman and himself as the clerk of 
the committee to Mr. Loew or his deputy, which despatches will be found 
in his testimony. Mr. Charles E. Loew then certified to the handwriting 
of a communication put in evidence by Mr. Davenport and signed Henry 
A. Gumbleton, assistant deputy clerk, whereupon the chairman, by 
instruction of the committee, handed to Mr. Loew the following commu¬ 
nication : 


House of Representatives, Washington, D. C., February 18, 1869. 

SlR: The committee on alleged New York election frauds directs me to say that it insists 
upon the production by you of the papers required by its subpoena; but that for any 
purpose other than this, your presence is not now required. The future action of the com¬ 
mittee, if you persist in refusiug to obey its summons, will depend upon the business before 
the house. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

WM. LAWRENCE, Chairman Committee. 

Charles E. Loew, Esq. 

The committee then adjourned, subject to the call of the chairman. 


Washington, D. C., February 20, 1869. 

A meeting of the committee was held in the cloak-room of the House of 
Representatives pursuant to a call of the chairman at 4.30 o’clock p. m. 
All the members present. Additional copies of the report of the com¬ 
mittee were furnished the members by the chairman, and the recom¬ 
mendations and remedies proposed were discussed. The chairman 
requested leave to report on Monday, the 22d. Mr. Kerr moved that 
the report of the committee be not made to the House until Wednesday, 
the 24th. After much discussion, it was unanimously agreed to defer a 
decision upon this subject until Monday, February 22, at 10.30 a. m., 
until which hour, at the same place, the meeting adjourned. 


Washington, D. C., February 22, 1869. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All the members 
present but Mr. Ross. Mr. Dawes moved that the chairman have leave 
to submit his report at such time after to-day as he should desire. Mr. 
Kerr moved to amend by striking out all after the word “report” and 
inserting the words “on Wednesday next.” The amendment of Mr. 
Kerr being submitted, was lost. The motion of Mr. Dawes was then 
put and carried. Mr. Hopkins moved that the chairman be at liberty, 
from and after this hour, to deliver to the press copies of the report 
with the pledge, and upon the understanding that it should not be pub- 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 175 

lislied until submitted to the House, and that the minority have the 
same privilege in the matter of their views. Carried. 

John I. Davenport was recalled and examined. 

On motion the committee adjourned subject to the call of the chairman. 

Washington, D. C., February 24, 1869. 

The committee met pursuant to a call of the chairman, in the room of 
the Committee on Indian Affairs of the House of Representatives, at 10 
o’clock a. m. 

Present: The Chairman, Messrs. Blair, Hopkins, and Ross. 

Mr. John H. Bell appeared in the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms, 
having been arrested by order of the House for contempt in refusing to 
answer questions put him by the sub committee when in Orange county. 

During his cross-examination by Mr. Ross, the following question was 
propounded: 

Q. State whether you are satisfied that you could then or can now furnish evidence to the 
committee showing the republican party guilty of frauds in the election of last November in 
New York. 

Mr. Blair objected to the form of the question, in that it did not ask 
the witness to state any fact or facts within his personal knowledge. 

The chairman submitted the question to the committee for its decision, 
and Mr. Ross demanded the yeas and nays. The roll being called by 
the clerk, Messrs. Ross and Hopkins voted that the question be put, and 
the Chairman and Mr. Blair opposed. Before the result of the vote was 
announced Mr. Dawes entered, and the question being read to him by 
the reporter he voted no, suggesting the propounding of the question in 
the following manner: 

Q. If you know of any fact within your knowledge that will go to show that the repub¬ 
lican party in the State of New York was engaged in or guilty of any fraud in the election 
of last November, state it. 

Mr. Ross objected to the question proposed by Mr. Dawes being put 
to the witness. The question being submitted, it was decided unani¬ 
mously to allow Mr. Dawes to ask it. 

Mr. Kerr and Mr. Dickey appeared; and the examination of Mr. Bell 
being concluded, Mr. David W. Reeve was brought before the committee by 
the Sergeant-at-arms and examined as a witness. At the close of his 
examination the question of the admission of certain testimony, taken 
by Mr. Ross in Orange county without the authority of the committee 
or the presence of a member of the majority, was brought up by Mr. 
Ross for decision, the same having been put in type. Mr. Dawes there¬ 
upon read certain portions of the testimony so taken, which he consid¬ 
ered utterly worthless, being entirely hearsay. 

Mr. Kerr moved that all this testimony be incorporated in the testi¬ 
mony taken by this committee. 

Mr. Dawes moved to amend as follows: That the testimony taken 
in this manner by Mr. Ross and desired by him to be incorporated in 
the evidence taken by the committee shall be presented to the chair¬ 
man of this committee, and such thereof as shall in the opinion of the 
chairman be legal testimony shall be incorporated with the testimony 
taken by this committee. 

A vote being taken by yeas and nays on the demand of Mr. Ross, the 
amendment of Mr. Dawes and the resolution as so amended were 
adopted: Yeas—The Chairman, Messrs. Dawes, Dickey, Blair, and 
Hopkins. Kays—Messrs. Kerr and Ross. 

Mr. Ross then presented all the testimony taken by him. 

Mr. Blair moved that the witness Bell be discharged from custody on 
the payment of the costs of his arrest. 


176 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


Mr. Kerr moved to amend by striking out the words “ on the payment 
of the costs of his arrest.” 

The question being submitted the amendment of Mr. Kerr was lost— 
yeas, 2; nays, 5. The motion of Mr. Blair was then adopted. 

Mr. Dawes moved that the witness David W. Reeve be discharged from 
custody. Carried unanimously. 

The chairman decided to permit the incorporation in the testimony of 
all the evidence taken by Mr. Ross. 

On motion, the committee adjourned subject to the call of the chair¬ 
man. 


JOURNAL OF THE SEVERAL SUB-COMMITTEES OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE 
ON NEW YORK ELECTION FRAUDS. 

Mr. Dickey, of the sub committee appointed and acting under the 
resolutions and orders of the committee of January 5 and 12, took tes¬ 
timony at the following named places and dates, and examined the 
witnesses below mentioned: 

Peekskill, Westchester county, January 12,1869.—Hugh McKee, Timothy 
Duyer, William Coul, Mitchell Laird, Charles Snyder, Adam Horsfelt, 
Bernard S. Kelly. 

Kingston, Ulster county, Janua ry 13,1869.—Andrew E. J. Ansen, Reuben 
Bernard, James L. Bostwick. 

Kondout, Ulster county, January 14, 1869.—Patrick M. Haggerty. 

Troy, New York, January 14, 1869.—George R. Olney, Oliver Burke, 
Irwing Hayner, James P. Butler, John D. B. Smith, Thomas Neany. 

Rochester, New York, January 15, 1869.—Joseph L. Lucky, Jerome 
Puller, Joseph L. Lucky, (recalled,) Calvin Knowles, Anthony Biser, 
James B. Adams, William S. Foster. 

Messrs. Blair and Ross, of the sub-committee appointed and acting 
under the resolutions and orders of the committee of January 29, 1869, 
took testimony at the following named places and dates, and examined 
the witnesses below mentioned : 

Middletown, Orange county, N . Y., February 1, 1869.—John Flynn, 
William P. Clark, John J. Bradley, Michael Riordan, Christian Borcold, 
John Hanley, Patrick Hanley, Patrick Powers, Edmund Powers, Charles 
Hoyt, Pat. Cameron, George Smith, D. P. Quackenbush, Daniel Driscoll, 
John O’Donovan, John H. Bell, Patrick Roland, Cornelius Gillespie, 
Luke Burns, Henry Belime, Peter Ennis, D. B. Irwin, Lewis Clark, Pat¬ 
rick Bradley, Edward Hackett, Michael Mahoney, Nathan J. Miller. 

Port Jervis, Orange county, N. Y., February 2, 1869.—Lewis E. Carr, 
Patrick Kelley, Owen Bouken, John McGuyen, James Gilmarton, Rich¬ 
ard, Tracy, Burton Breu, T. R. Broadhead, John Green, George Broad- 
head, Solomon Yan Elon, Mr. St. John, George W. Stuttle, Wilmot M. 
Yail, George F. Yinall. 

Montgomery, Orange county, N. Y., February 3, 1869.—John McKee, 
William Carroll, William McNeal, Anthony Donnegan, William Titus. 

Uamptonburg, Orange county, N. Y., February 2, 1869.—Thomas Ellis, 
Richard Levi, Thomas Moore, Robert Unswarth, James H. Jackson, Yir- 
gil Christ, James H. Lynn. 

Newburgh, Orange county, N. Y, February 4,1869.—Josephs. Ashurst, 
Charles Janieky, Patrick O’Brien, Charles Repp, Samuel Kirk, Edmund 
Cartter, Nicholas Wilson, Michael 'Farrar, Wenddelin Kneer, Richard 
Peele, Joseph Martin, Martin Smith, Patrick O’Brien, John Ashurst, 
Frank B. Dixon, Thomas Casey, Thomas Crook, John Meagher, Patrick 
O’Brien, John Coyle, John Cumberlarge, Edward S. Braidy. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 177 

Goshen., Orange county , February 4, 1SG9.—Theodore W. Ludlow, 
Thomas Kane. 

/Same place , February 5, I860.—Patrick Dunn, E. H. House, James 
Connell, Michael Burke, Patrick Ford, Dennis O’Brien, Nelson Owen, 
C. G. Elliott, H. Y. D. Hoyt, M. 0. Stivers, Charles S. Deming, and Seth 
K. Robinson. 

Mr. Ross, of the above sub-committee, without the presence of his col¬ 
league, and without any authority, employed a stenographer, and on Feb¬ 
ruary 2, I860, the day following the adjournment of the sub-committee 
at Middletown, visited that place and examined the following named wit¬ 
nesses : John Hirst, Edward Southwell, Patrick Tyrsee, William J. South- 
well, George Egleston, Reuben C. Miller, Chauncey Garrison, Joseph 
John-son, (colored,) George Briggs, James Fitz Gibbon, Thomas Butcher, 
Walter L. McCord, Jarvis R. Wood, Joseph Eitli. 

New York City, February 6, 1869. 

The sub-committee held a session at the Astor House, in this city, this 
day, meeting at 10 o’clock a. m. Present: Messrs. Blair and Ross. 

The following witnesses were examined: Samuel B. Garvin, James 
Kealey, Charles Buddington, George Bliss, jr., James Golden, Peter 
Hussey, Charles Nettleton, Frederick Tichen, Terrence Mowney, H. M. 
Clapp, Jerry Murphy, John Black, Theodore Allen, Joseph E. Russell, 
Joseph Casey, John McClusky, Lawrence Bommer, A. Yorhees, Dennis 
McLaughlin,- John Dillon, August Browning, Theodore Taylor, John 
McClusky, (recalled,) George H. Dunbar, David F. Crouley, Charles S. 
Strong, James Dunpliy, John H. McCunn, (recalled.) 

The following is the action of the House of Representatives on the 
several resolutions reported by the committee, and is inserted for infor¬ 
mation : 

[From the Globe, January 30, 1869.] 

In the House of Representatives of the United States, 

January 28, 1869. 

NEW YORK ELECTION FRAUDS. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio, from the Select Committee on New York Election Frauds, 
reported the following resolution, on which he demanded the previous question: 

Resolved , That the Serjeant-at-arms of this House be, and the same is hereby, directed to arrest and bring 
before this house Henry Johnson, to answer as for a contempt in refusing to appear before the committee of 
this house appointed to investigate alleged frauds in the late election in the State of New York in pursuance 
of a subpoena duly issued and served on said Johnson on the 13th of January, requiring him to appear and 
testify before said committee on that day; and that, a warrant be issued by the Speaker of this house to the 
Sergeant-at-arms, commanding him or his special messenger to arrest said Johnson and bring him before this 
house accordingly, and to abide the order and judgment of this house. 

Mr. Robinson. I rise to make a motion which takes precedence. I move that the House 
do now adjourn. 

The Speaker. The question will be upon taking a recess, as the House has ordered an 
evening session. 

The motion was agreed to. 

[From the Globe, January 30, 1869.] 

In the House of Representatives, 

Januaiy 29, 1869. 

RECUSANT WITNESS—HENRY JOHNSON. 

The House resumed the consideration of the following resolution, pending at the close of 
the afternoon session of yesterday : 

Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-arms of this house be, and the same is hereby directed to arrest and bring 
before this house Henry Johnson, to answer as for a contempt in tefusing to appear before Ihe committee of 
this house appointed to investigate alleged frauds in the late election in the State of New York in pursuance 
of a subpoena duly issued and served on said Johnson on the 13th of January, requiring him to appear and 
testify before said committee on that day; and that a warrant be issued by the Speaker of this house to the 
Sergeant-at-arms, commanding him or his special messenger to arrest said Johnson and bring him before this 
house accordingly, and to abide the order and judgment of this house. 

The Speaker. The pending question is upon seconding the call for the previous question. 

Mr. Brooks. I do not know who this Johnson is. I wish the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Lawrence) would state to the House some reasons for this resolution. 

H. Rep. Com. 31-12 



178 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YOEK. 


Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. I hold in my hand the original subpoena which was served upon 
Ilenry Johnson on the i 3th of January, 1889, requiring him to appear before the committee 
charged with the investigation of alleged election frauds in the State and city of New York, 
at the rooms where they were sitting at the time in the city of New York. He failed and 
refused to attend. I am advised that he is a material witness ; so material that the com¬ 
mittee have deemed it proper to direct me to report this resolution, and in order that he may 
be brought before the House to answer tor contempt in refusing to appear and testify before 
that committee: 

Mr. Brooks. Is the gentleman from Ohio sure that there is such a person as Henry 
Johnson 1 

Mr. Law t rence, of Ohio. Yes, sir. The Sergeant-at-arms has made a return that he 
served the subpoena upon that person. 

Mr. Brooks. There are so many “ tricks upon travellers” perpetrated in New York that 
sometimes persons assume names to which they are not entitled. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. The witness is well known in New York. He is not a myth 
cr one of the political friends of the gentleman who vote under assumed names. 

Mr. WOOD. I think the House ought to adopt this resolution unanimously, and grant the 
request of the committee. 

Mr. Ross. I would inquire of the gentleman why we should select this particular indi¬ 
vidual out of the great number who neglected to respond to the process of the committee ? 
There were, I think, fifteen or twenty witnesses subpoenaed upon my motion who did not 
attend, and among them was a telegraph operator by whom I proposed to show that Colonel 
Wood had sent word to a man named Noble, living at Elmira, to come down and work up 
the case for the committee. But I was not able to procure the attendance of those witnesses, 
and I sbouldHbe glad if the chairman would furnish us with some process by which we may 
be able to prove these frauds which were perpetrated and attempted to be perpetrated by the 
republican party upon the elective franchise m the State of New York. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. The inquiry of my colleague on the committee [Mr. Ross] is 
perfectly proper. There were quite a number of witnesses who refused to obey the process 
issued requiring their attendance before the committee; and the House of course understands 
very well that the committee, as such, had no power to compel their attendance. We have 
selected this case and one or two others because the witnesses are deemed very material; and 
we propose that they shall be brought to the bar of the House not only that they may answer 
for their contempt, but that we may procure their testimony. 

As to the particular case alluded to by my colleague on the committee, he ought, I think, 
in fairness to state that when this subject was before the committee I said to him, as did other 
members of the committee, that if he desired that the telegraph operator to whom he has 
referred should be brought before the House to answer for contempt the committee would 
make an order directing a resolution to be presented for that purpose. This operator who 
was served with process did not come before the committee, but made an answer that it was 
impossible for him to furnish the testimony desired by the gentleman from Illinois. We 
issued process for his attendance, and that was all the committee could do. If the gentle¬ 
man from Illinois will say now that he regards that witness as material I will call the com¬ 
mittee together, and I think I can assure him and the House that the committee will agree to 
report a resolution requiring that this witness shall be brought before the House. But the gen¬ 
tleman did not ask that any such resolution should be reported in that particular case, and the 
committee have selected for the action now proposed the cases of those witnesses only whom 
they deem the most material, because it would not be practicable during the brief period left 
for this Congress to deal with all the refractory witnesses—all the witnesses who refused to 
appear before the committee in answer to subpoenas sent out for them. 

Mr. Ross. I should be very glad if the chairman of the committee would insert in this 
resolution the name of that telegraph operator, and require him to produce the telegram from 
Colonel Wood to Mr. Noble, of Elmira, asking him to come down and engage in working 
up the case. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. I have no authority to agree to any amendment, because this 
resolution comes from the committee; but I say to the gentleman now that I will call the 
committee together at any time he desires to take into consideration the case of any refrac¬ 
tory witnesses whom he may wish to bring before us. 

I ought, perhaps, to make a single additional remark. The gentleman has said, as I 
understood him, that he desired to take some proof as to republican frauds in the city of 
New York. I am not surprised that he desires such proof. No such proof has yet been 
made before the committee. If there have been frauds of that character I should be glad to 
have them proved, because this committee was charged with the duty of investigating 
frauds irrespective of party; and the amplest opportunity has been given to the minority of 
the committee and to all interested to present proof of frauds of every description. 

Mr. Ross. I did not suppose my colleague on the committee would give a statement of 
all the testimony that we have had before us. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. No, sir; I state nothing as to the testimony before the committee. 

Mr. Ross. So far from it being the fact that no republican frauds have been proved, my 
recollection is that such frauds have been proved very largely, and that there were 20 or 30 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. ' 179 

witnesses waiting to prove that they had “ repeated ” for the republican party in New York, 
when the committee decided to receive no more of that class of testimony. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Kerr.] 

Mr. Kerr. Mr. Speaker, I think it my duty, after the remarks of the gentleman from 
Ohio, [Mr. Lawrence,] my colleague on the committee, to say to the House that, according 
to my recollection, in which I am as clear as it is possible for a man to be, the statement 
which he has just made in reference to there being no proof of fraud practised in the late 
election in New York by the republican party, or any of their agents or friends, is not true. 
The very contrary is true—most emphatically true! I am surprised, Mr. Speaker, to have 
heard such a statement from my colleague, and I submit further that it was uncalled for by 
anything which has transpired in connection with his resolution. 

I make no objection to that resolution, provided only that it has for its object the eliciting 
of some evidence which is material to the investigation entrusted to the committee. But 
if it is intended, as I believe it is, to develop some cumulative testimony on points upon 
which this committee have already spent weeks of investigation, but which will add no new 
material fact to anything already developed, then I do submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is uncalled 
for now ; that it is unnecessary ; that it is only creating additional expense by prolonging 
the examination ; and that the House ought not to make this order. I understand—I believe 
I violate no rule of propriety when I say it—that it is the desire of the majority of the com¬ 
mittee to send for this particular witness to testify on the subject of repeating at the late 
election. If I am wrong in that, I hope my colleague will correct me. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. The gentleman is wrong. 

Mr. Kerr. Then I have to withdraw what I have said on that point. I must say, then, I 
think it becomes the duty of the chairman of the committee to state to the House on what 
material part of this investigation it is that this witness is expected to testify, in order that we 
may know whether it is our duty to consent to the adoption of this resolution or not. I ask 
my colleague whether the testimony expected to be elicited from this witness relates to the 
irregularities in the business of naturalization, or what is called repeating, in connection 
with this investigation. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. I will say to my colleague on the committee that this witness 
was not summoned to prove anything in relation to repeating at all. He was summoned, as 
I understand it, to prove that two democratic poll clerks put upon a poll-list a large number 
of names as voters who never appeared and voted at all. This testimony, therefore, is not 
cumulative, but it is independent. It is to furnish evidence of a new species of fraud 
entirely. 

I wish to say further that the remark which I made in relation to frauds by the republican 
party was made in reply to my colleague on^the committee, [Mr. Ross.] Whether I am 
correct or my colleague from Indiana [Mr. Kerr] is correct is a matter that will be ascertained 
from the proof when it is printed. I do not desire now to go into a discussion of that subject. 

Mr. KeRR. I desire to say just one word in reply to what my colleague has said. I 
heartily concur in his last remark, that that matter should be properly submitted to the 
House after all the evidence is reported. It is not a proper subject of wrangling between us 
now. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. Not at all. 

Mr. Kerr. But I want to say this, that the gentleman should do me the justice now to 
say that he has never hitherto stated to the minority of the committee why he desired to call 
this witness here at all, although on several occasions I asked him this very question in the 
committee-room. But now, since he has stated the reason why he wants to call the witness 
I make no objection at all to his being called. On the contrary, I shall vote that he be 
called here to testify upon that point. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. My colleague, I think, has forgotten what occurred in the 
committee-room. I do not remember precisely whether he was present or not at the par¬ 
ticular time the case of this witness was considered, but I do know that the fact was stated 
in the committee that it was expected that he would prove precisely what I have stated. I 
apprehend my colleague from Illinois [Mr. Ross] will remember that. I know that both, 
the gentlemen composing the minority of the committee will do me the justice to say that I 
have never withheld from them any fact connected with any witness or with the investiga¬ 
tion as to which fact they have made any inquiry, or which they could in any sense deem it 
proper for me to communicate to them. 

Mr. Kerr. I desire to say- 

The Speaker. The Chair suggests that it is not regular to debate what occurred in the 
committee-room except when it is presented in the shape of a written report. Both sides 
have been heard, and the Chair doubts whether it is proper to continue the discussion. 

Mr. Kerr. I have no desire to do so, but we should be allowed to be heard on this side. 

The Speaker. The Chair was under the impression that both sides had been heard. If 
the gentleman thinks otherwise the Chair will not insist upon enforcing the 1 uie. 

Mr. Kerr. I have been heard on all the points except the last one suggested by my col- 
league. 

The Speaker. The gentleman will proceed till some member arrests him by a point of 
order. 



180 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


Mr. Kerr. I wish to say that I have not intended to impeach the personal conduct of the 
chairman of the committee toward the minority. He has certainly been kind. But I must 
also say, in justice to myself and to the truth, which this record will disclose when it comes 
to be published, that we have not had fair and equal opportunities to elicit evidence in this 
case in behalf of that party that has been most attacked by the conduct of the majority. 
Further than that I do not desire now to say. 

Mr, Lawrence, of Ohio. Well, I am willing to stand upon the record. I now yield to 
my colleague on the committee from Massachusetts. 

Mr. Dawes. My colleagues upon the committee will pardon me if I say* that I think the 
question before the House is not what this witness would testify to, or whether this or that 
has transpired in the committee or not, but it is simply whether a witness shall be made to 
obey the subpoena of this house; and there is nothing further in the question than that. 

I regret exceedingly that this discussion has arisen about what has transpired in the com¬ 
mittee, or what has been the testimony produced before the committee, and what is proposed 
to be proved by a witness. It is not for the witness to judge himself whether the testimony 
is material or not. It is for the House to say whether its subpoena shall be obeyed when 
properly served on him as a witness, and it seems to me there is nothing further in the case. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. I now ask the previous question. 

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered ; and under the opera¬ 
tion thereof the resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. I have another privileged resolution which I desire to report. 

The Speaker. The Chair cannot entertain it at this time, as the motion to reconsider, 
which is the unfinished business and doubly privileged, now comes up. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. I will take another opportunity to present it. 

[From the Globe, February 2, 1869.] 

In the House of Representatives, 

February 1, 1869. 

COMMITTEE ON NEW YORK ELECTION. 

Mr. Dawes. I am instructed by the select committee on election frauds in New York to 
submit the following resolution, on which I demand the previous question: 

Resolved, That the select committee on election frauds in the State of New York be authorized to employ 
such additional clerical force as in their judgment shall be deemed necessary, at such compensation as is now 
aid for like service. 

Mr. Kerr. I would like to make an inquiry of my colleague on the committee, (Mr. Dawes.) 

Mr. Dawes. I yield for an inquiry. 

Mr. Kerr. I wish to ask the gentleman whether he cannot limit in the resolution the num¬ 
ber of clerks to be employed by the committee ? 

Mr. Dawes. I should be exceeding willing to limit the number if I could fix precisely at 
this time the amount of work to be done. 1 think the House will be willing to assume that 
the committee will not be extravagant in this matter, when the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. 
Lawrence,) who has such a reputation for economy, is at the head of the committee. I can 
assure the House there will be no unnecessary employment of clerks. 

Mr. Kerr. I deem it my duty, under the circumstances, to move to lay this resolution on 
the table. I think no additional clerks are necessary. 

Mr. Spalding. I hope the resolution will be amended or modified so as to authorize the 
employment of not more than two or three additional clerks. 

Mr. Dawes. I should be willing to insert a limitation of that kind if I knew precisely the 
amount of work to be done. It is necessary that this work, which consists of making certain 
copies, &c., shall be done with despatch; and it. will be less expensive to the government to 
employ several clerks for a short time than one or two for a long time. The committee 
deemed it best that no limitation should be included in the resolution. 

Mr. Brooks. I would like to knowhow much money the committee have already expended. 

Mr. Dawes. I am unable to answer that question ; but I assure the gentleman that no 
investigating committee of which I have any knowledge—and I am sorry that my knowledge 
of investigating committees is somewhat extensive—has ever been run so economically as 
this committee, of which the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Lawrence] is chairman. 

I think this matter is understood by the House, and I may as well insist on the demand for 
the previous question. 

Mr. Kerr. I wish to put an inquiry to my colleague on the committee. He says that 
this matter is understood by the House. I do not think it is or can have been, from what he 
has said. 

Mr. Dawes. I wonder, then, that the gentleman should have moved to lay the resolution 
on the table. 

Mr. Kerr. Will the gentleman state what it is these clerks are desired to do? After an 
explanation on that point I may be willing to withdraw the motion to lay on the table. 

Mr. Dawes. I can tell the gentleman, in brief, that these clerks are required in order to 
make copies of papers and to do other writing in connection with matters which the com¬ 
mittee deem it necessary to investigate and report upon. I insist upon the previous question. 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 181 

M. Kerr. The House is not yet advised what these clerks are to do, and I submit that it 
ought to be in order to vote intelligently. 

Mr. Dawes. I am unable to give the gentleman the titles of all the papers that the com¬ 
mittee deem it necessary to copy. If the House think the committee at this stage of the 
proceedings ought to make a development of that kind they will insist upon it ; but I hardly 
think it worth while. 

Mr . Kerr. The truth is, the papers the gentleman wants will do this house and the coun¬ 
try no good at all if they have them here. I demand the yeas and nays on laying the resolu¬ 
tion on the table. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative—yeas 35, nays 121, not vot¬ 
ing 66 : as follow's: 

Yeas— Messrs. Axtell, Baker, Beck, Boyer, Brooks, Burr, Cary, Chanler, Fox, Getz, Glossbrenner, Golla- 
day, Haight, Holman, Humphrey, Hunter, Johnson. Thomas L. Jones, Kerr. Knott, Marshall, McCormick, 
Mungen, Niblack, Nicholson, Pruyn, Randall, Robinson, Spalding, Taber, Tift, Van Auken, Van Trump, 
Woodward, and Young—35. 

Nays—M essrs. Allison, Ames, A.nell, Bailey, Baldwin. Banks, Beaman, Beniamin, Benton, Bingham, 
Blaine, Boles, Boutwell, Bowen. Boyden, Broomall, Buckland, Buckley, Cake, Cobb, Cook, Corley, Covode, 
Cullom, Dawes, Delano, Dickey, Dockery, Dodge, Driggs, Eggleston, Ela, Thomas D. Eliot, James T. 
Elliott, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, French, Garfield, Goss, Gove, Hamilton, Haughey. Hawkins, 
Higby, Hill, Hopkins, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Ingersoll, Jenckes, Alexander H. Jones, Julian, Kelley, 
Kellogg, Kelsey, Ketcham, Koontz, Laflin, Lash, George V. Lawrence, Wl'liam Lawrence, Lincoln, Loan, 
Marvin, Maynard, McKee, Mercur, Miller, Moore, Moorhead, Mullins, Myers, Newcojnb, Norris, Nunn, O’Neill, 
Orth, Paine, Perham, Peters, Pierce. Pile.Plants, Poland, Polsley, Price. Rautn, Robertson, Sawyer, Schenck, 
Scofield, Selye, Shanks. Shellabarger, Starkweather, Stevens, Stewart, Stokes, Stover, Taffe, Thomas, 
Trowbridge, Twichell, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Cadwallader C. 
Washburn, Henry D. Washburn, Wil'iam B. Washburn. Welker, Whittemore, Thomas Williams, William 
Williams, James F. Wilson, John T. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, and Woodbridge— 121. 

Not voting —Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Archer, Delos R. Ashley, James M. Ashley, Barnes, Barnum. 
Beatty, Blackburn, Blair, Rromwell, Benjamin F. Butler, Roderick R. Butler, Callis, Churchill, Reader W. 
Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Clift, Coburn, Cornell, Deweese, Dixon, Donnelly, Eckley, Edwards, Eldridge, 
Gravely, Griswold, Grover, Halsey, Harding, Heaton, Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. 
Hubbard, Judd, Kitchen, Logan, Loughridge, Lynch, Mallory, McCarthy, McCullough, Morrell, Morrissey, 
Newsham, Pettis, Phelps, Pike, Pomeroy, Prince, Roots, Ross, Sitgreaves, Smith, Stone, Sypher, Taylor, 
John Trimble, Lawrence S. Trimble, Van Wyck, Vidal, Ellihu B. Washburne, Windom, and Wood—G6. 

So the House refused to lay the resolution on the table. 

The previous question was then seconded and the main question ordered. 

Mr. Kerr. I demand the yeas and nays on agreeing to the resolution. 

The yeas and nays were ordered, 

The question was taken; and it was decided in the affirmative—yeas 109, nays 30, not 
voting 83 ; as follows : 

Yeas— Messrs. Allison, Arnell, James M. Ashley, Bailey, Baldwin, Beaman, Beatty, Benjamin, Benton, 
Bingham, Blaine, Boles, Boyden, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Buckley, Cake, Clift, Cobb, Covode, Cul¬ 
lom, Dawes, Delano, Dickey, Dockery, Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Eggleston, Ela, Ferriss, Fields, Garfield, 
Goss, Gravely, Harding, Haughey, Hawkins, Higbv, Hooper, Hopkins, Chester D. Hubbard, Hulburd, 
Hunter, Jenckes, Alexander H. Jones, Judd, Kelley, Kellogg, Ketcham, Koontz, Laflin, Lash, William Law¬ 
rence, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, Marvin, Maynard, McKee, Mercur, Miller, Moore, Morrell, Mullins, Myers, 
Newcomb, Newsham, Norris, O’Neill, Orth, Paine, Perham, Peters, Pierce. Polsley, Price, Prince, Raum, 
Robertson, Roots, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Selye, Shellabarger, Smith, Starkweather, Stevens, Stokes, 
Stover, TafFe, Trowbridge, Twichell, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Cadwala- 
der C. Washburn, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, Whittemore, Thomas Williams, 
William Williams, James F. Wilson, John T. Wilson, and Stephen F. Wilson—109. 

NaYj —Messrs. Axtell, Baker, Beck, Boyer, Brooks, Burr, Chanler. Fox, Getz, Golladav, Grover, Haight, 
Holman, Humphrey, Johnson, Kerr, Knott, Marshall, McCormick, Mungen, Niblack, Nicholson, Pruyn, 
Randall, Robinson, Stone, Van Auken, Van Trump, Woodward, and Young—30. 

Not VOTING— Messrs. Adams, Ames, Anderson. Archer, Delos R. Ashley, Banks, Barnes, Barnum, 
Blackburn, Blair, Boutwell, Bowen, Benjamin F. Butler, Roderick R. Butler. Callis. Cary, Churchill, Reader 
W. Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Coburn, Cook, Corley, Cornell, Deweese. Dixon.Eckley, Edwards, Eldridge, 
Thomas D. Eliot, James T. Elliott, Farnsworth. Ferry, French, Glossbrenner, Gove, Griswold, Halsey, 
Hamilton, Heaton, Hill, Hotchkiss, Asahel VV. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Ingersoll, Thomas L. Jones, 
Julian, Kelsey, Kitchen, George V. Lawrence, Lincoln, Lynch. Mallory, McCarthy, McCullough. Moorhead, 
Morrissey. Nunn, Pettis, Phelps, Pike, Pile, Plants, Poland. Pomeroy, Ross, Shanks, Sitgreaves, Spalding, 
Stewart. Sypher, Taber, Taylor, Thomas, Tift, John Trimble, Lawrence S. Trimble, Upson, Van Wyck, 
Vidal, Ellihu B. Washburne, Windham, Wood, and Woodbridge—83. 

So the resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. Dawes moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and 
also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 


RECUSANT WITNESS. 


Mr. Dawes. I am also instructed by the same committe to report the following resolution: 

Resolved, That the Sergeant-at-arms of this house be, and is hereby, directed to arrest and bring before this 
house Florence Scanned, to answer questions put to him by the committee of this house appointed to investi¬ 
gate alleged frauds in the late election in the State of New York; and that a warrant be issued by the Speaker 
of this house to the Sergeant-at-arms commanding him or his special messenger to arrest said Florence Scan- 
nell and bring him before this house accordingly to answer for this his contempt and abide the ou.ei anu 
judgment of this house in the premises. 


182 


ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


Mr. Kf,rr. I desire to say in reference to this fellow that I have no objection to his being 
brought here to testify; but when he refused to answer questions in New York no objection 
was made by the chairman of the committee, and he was not notified that he was in contempt 
or would be sent for by the House, and he was discharged. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. I did not quite understand the remark of my colleague from 
Indiana in regard to this man being discharged. 

Mr Kerr. My remark was this: that when this witness was on the stand in New York, 
and was being examined by the committee, he did refuse to answer some questions, and the 
committee did not then insist on his answering those questions, but discharged him without 
any further objection being made or any notice to him that if he did not answer he would be 
brought here to answer. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. I think my colleague is not quite accurate in saying that the 
committee did not insist on his answering. They undoubtedly did insist on his answering. 
We did not'give him any notice that he would be brought here, because the committee 
could not undertake to speak for the House of Representatives ; we could not say in advance 
whether the House would or would not pass a resolution to bring him here; but the com¬ 
mittee did insist on his answering the questions, and he refused positively. We had no 
power to detain him ; he was necessarily discharged. 

Mr. Dawes. I suppose the gentleman from Indiana means that he was not held in custody. 
He was in no other sense discharged. The committee did not hold him in custody for the 
very good reason that they had no power to hold him in custody. Nor did the committee 
intimate to him that they would not insist on answers to the questions. The record shows a 
very gross contempt of the authority of the House, and I think no gentleman would under¬ 
take to justify it. 

Mr. Kerr. I do not object to his being brought here, but the gentlemen have discovered, 
or think they have, since we left New York, that it is worth while to examine him further, 
by way of further prospecting in partisan interests. 

Mr. Robinson. Is there not an understanding that this gentleman wants to attend the 
inauguration ball, and is not this an after consideration that he may come here free of 
expense ? (Laughter.) 

Mr Dawes. I should judge from what I saw of the character of the witness that he 
would be the last man that would enjoy himself at the inauguration. I move the previous 
question. 

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered; and under the opera¬ 
tion thereof the resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. Dawes moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was adopted; and also 
moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

The latter motion was agreed to. 


report of committee on election frauds IN NEW YORK, 

When the report of the committee was presented in the House of Representatives by the 
chairman, the Hon. William Lawrence, the following debate ensued: 

[From the Globe, February 24, 1869.] 

Mr. Asiilf.y, of Ohio. I now yield for two minutes to my colleague, [Mr. Lawrence.] 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. I am instructed by the Joint Committee on Alleged Election 
Frauds in New York to make a report in part on the subject committed to them, which I 
now do, accompanied by certain bills and joint resolutions, which I ask to have read a first 
and second time and recommitted to the committee, and, with the report, ordered to be printed. 

NATURALIZATION IN NEW YORK CITY. 

The first bill was a bill (II. R. No. 2002) withdrawing jurisdiction of naturalization from 
certain courts in New York city. 

Mr. Eldridge. I call for the reading of the bill. 

The bill was read. It provides that the supreme court, the circuit courts, and the courts 
of oyer and terminer in the city and county of New York, and the superior court of the city 
of New York, shall not hereafter have power to admit any alien to be a citizen. 

Mr. Eldridge. Does it require unanimous consent to have this bill reported from the 
committee at this time ? 

, The Speaker. The committee are authorized to report at any time. 

Mr. Eldridge. I insist upon the regular order of business, which I understand is some 
matter which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Aside}'] has in charge. 

The Speaker. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Ashley] yielded to his colleague, [Mr. 
Lawrence,] who reports this bill from a committee authorized to report at any time. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Eldridge] or any other gentleman has a right to object to 
the first reading of the bill, in which case the question will be, “ Shall this bill be rejected ?” 
as will be seen by reference to the Digest. 



ELECTION FRAUDS IN NEW YORK. 


183 


Mr. Eldridge. This is not exactly what I desire. My object in calling for the reading 
of this bill was to see what it was, and to object to it if upon its reading I found I was 
opposed to it. 

Mr. Ashlf.Y, of Ohio. I hope the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Eldridge] will let this 
bill be printed and recommitted. 

Mr. Eldridge. I propose to oppose this bill upon every occasion and in every form, 
shape, and manner. 

Mr. Ashley, of Ohio. If we are brought to a direct vote upon the bill we may be com¬ 
pelled to pass it without having it printed. I would prefer myself to see it in print. 

Mr. Eldridge. I must object to the reception of this bill. 

Mr. Boutwell. Will it be in order upon this reading to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill at this time. 

The Speaker. It will. 

Mr. Boutwell. I do not know but what that would be the best course for us to pursue 
if objection is made by the gentlemen on the other side to printing and recommitting this bill. 

Mr. ASHLEY, of Ohio. I hope the gentleman from Wisconsin will permit this bill to be 
printed and recommitted. I had no expectation when I yielded that more than three or four 
minutes of time would be consumed in this matter. 

Mr. Eldridge. I would be very glad to oblige the gentleman, but I am opposed to this 
bill in every form and shape. I am not opposed to the gentleman, but to the passage of this 
bill. 

The question was, “ Shall the bill be rejected ?” 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. On that question I call for the previous question. 

The previous question was seconded and the main question ordered. 

Mr. Ross. I call for the yeas and nays. 

The question was taken upon ordering the yeas and nays, and there were, upon a divis¬ 
ion, ayes 23, noes 94; not one-fifth in the affirmative. 

Before the result of the vote was announced, Mr. Fox called for tellers. 

The question was taken upon ordering tellers; and there were, yeas 26. 

So (the affirmative being one-fifth of a quorum) tellers were ordered ; and Mr. Lawrence, 
of Ohio, and Mr. Fox were appointed. 

The House again divided; and the tellers reported that there were—ayes 30. 

So (the affirmative being one-fifth of the last vote) the yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. Will it be in order now to move to suspend the rules for the 
purpose of putting this bill on its passage ? 

The Speaker. It will not, because the House has ordered the main question to be put, 
which is, “ Shall this bill be rejected,” upon which the yeas and nays have been ordered. 

The question was taken ; and it was decided in the negative; yeas 34, nays 120, not 
voting 68 ; as follows : 

Yeas —Messrs. Archer, Axtell, Barnes, Barnum, Beck, Brooks, Burr, Cary, Chanter, Eldridge, Fox, Getz, 
Golladay, Grover, Haight, Hawkins, Holman, Humphrey, Johnson, Thomas L. Jones, Kerr, Kuott, Marshall, 
McCormick, McCullough, Muugen, Niblaek, Nicholson, Phelps, Pruyn Robinson, Ross, Tift, and Young—34. 

Nays —Messrs. Allison, Ames, Arnell, James M. Ashley, Beaman, Beatty, Benjamin, Benton, Blackburn, 
Blair, Boutwell, Boyden. Broomall, Buckley, Churchill, Reader W. Clarke, Clift, Cobb, Coburn, Cook, Cor¬ 
ley, Cornell, Cullom, Dawes, Deweese, Dickey, Dockery, Driggs, Eckley, Edwards, Eggleston, Thomas D. 
Eliot, James T. Elliott, Farnsworth, Ferriss, Ferry, Fields, French, Garfield, Goss, Gove, Gravely, Griswold, 
Hamilton, Harding, Haughey, Heaton, Higby, Hill, Hopkins, Chester D. Hubbard, Hunter, Ingersoli, Jenckes, 
Alexander LI. Jones, Judd, Julian, Kelley, Kellogg, Ketcham, Kitchen. Koontz, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, 
■William Lawrence, Loan, Logan, Loughridge, Lynch, Marvin, Maynard, McKee, Mercur, Miller, Moore, 
Morrell, Mullins, Myers, Newcomb, Newsham, Norris, O’Neill, Paine, Perham, Peters, Pettis, Pierce, Plauts, 
Pomeroy Price, Prince, Raum, Robertson, Roots, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shanks, Sheilabarger, Spalding, 
Stevens, Stover, Taffe, Taylor, Thomas, John Trimble, Trowbridge, Twitchell,Van Aernam, Burt Van Llorn, 
RobertT. Van Horn, Ward, CadwaladerC. Washburn, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker, 
Wbittemore, William Williams, John T. Wilson, and Windom—120. 

Not VOTING.— Messrs. Adams, Anderson, Delos R. Ashley, Bailey, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Bingham, 
Blaine, Boles, Bowen, Boyer, Bromwell, Buckland, Benjamin F. Butler, Roderick R. Butler, Cake, Callis, 
Sidney Clarke, Covode, Delano, Dixon, Dodge, Donnelly, Ela, Glossbrenner, Halsey, Hooper, Hotchkiss, 
Asahel W. Hubbard, Richard D. Hubbard, Hulburd, Kelsey, Lash, Lincoln, Mallory, McCarthy, Moorhead, 
Morrissey, Nunn, Orth, Pike, Pile, Poland, Polssley, Randall, Selye, Sitgreaves, Smith, Starkweather, 
Stewart, Stokes, Stone, Sypher, Taber, Lawrence S. Trimble, Upson, Van Auken, Van Trump, Van Wyc.k, 
Vidal, Ellihu B. Washburne, Thomas Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Wood, Woodbridge, 
and Woodward—68. 

So the bill was not rejected. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. I move to reconsider the vote just taken, and also move that 
the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. 

Mr. Brooks. I call for the yeas and nays. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. I withdraw the motion. I ask that the remaining bills which 
I have reported be read a first and second time. 

The Speaker. If the House passes from the consideration of this bill it will go to the 
Speaker’s table, where it probably will not be reached. 

Mr. Lawrence, of Ohio. I propose then to^make a motion to suspend the rules. 

Mr. Ashley, of Ohio. I did not yield to my colleague with any expectation that hia 
business was to take up the whole morning. 

The Speaker. That may be: but this bill is now in the possession of the House. It can 
be considered and acted on or the House may pass from its consideration, in which case it 
will go to the Speaker’s table. 





































































































































































































4 














